linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v6 01/26] Documentation/x86: Add CET description

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181120095253.GA119911@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:52:53 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 01/26] Documentation/x86: Add CET description


* Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:

> +X86 Documentation
> +=======================
> +
> +Control-flow Enforcement
> +========================
> +
> +.. toctree::
> +   :maxdepth: 1
> +
> +   intel_cet
> diff --git a/Documentation/x86/intel_cet.rst b/Documentation/x86/intel_cet.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..dac83bbf8a24
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/x86/intel_cet.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +=========================================
> +Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET)
> +=========================================
> +
> +[1] Overview
> +============
> +
> +Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET) provides protection against
> +return/jump-oriented programming (ROP) attacks.  It can be setup to
> +protect both the kernel and applications.  In the first phase,
> +only the user-mode protection is implemented in 64-bit mode; 32-bit
> +applications are supported in compatibility mode.
> +
> +CET introduces shadow stack (SHSTK) and indirect branch tracking
> +(IBT).  SHSTK is a secondary stack allocated from memory and cannot
> +be directly modified by applications.  When executing a CALL, the
> +processor pushes a copy of the return address to SHSTK.  Upon
> +function return, the processor pops the SHSTK copy and compares it
> +to the one from the program stack.  If the two copies differ, the
> +processor raises a control-protection exception.  IBT verifies all
> +indirect CALL/JMP targets are intended as marked by the compiler
> +with 'ENDBR' opcodes (see CET instructions below).
> +
> +There are two kernel configuration options:
> +
> +    INTEL_X86_SHADOW_STACK_USER, and
> +    INTEL_X86_BRANCH_TRACKING_USER.
> +
> +To build a CET-enabled kernel, Binutils v2.31 and GCC v8.1 or later
> +are required.  To build a CET-enabled application, GLIBC v2.28 or
> +later is also required.
> +
> +There are two command-line options for disabling CET features:
> +
> +    no_cet_shstk - disables SHSTK, and
> +    no_cet_ibt - disables IBT.
> +
> +At run time, /proc/cpuinfo shows the availability of SHSTK and IBT.

What is the rough expected performance impact of CET on average function 
call frequency user applications and the kernel itself?

Thanks,

	Ingo