[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E359D543-FB4E-4EF5-85E6-40057B57C58F@amacapital.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:01:40 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lkdtm/bugs: Avoid ifdefs for DOUBLE_FAULT
> On Nov 27, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> LKDTM test visibility shouldn't change, so remove the ifdefs on
> DOUBLE_FAULT and make sure test failure doesn't crash the system.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191127184837.GA35982@gmail.com
> Fixes: b09511c253e5 ("lkdtm: Add a DOUBLE_FAULT crash type on x86")
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> ---
> applies on top of tip/x86/urgent
> ---
> drivers/misc/lkdtm/bugs.c | 8 +++++---
> drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c | 4 +---
> drivers/misc/lkdtm/lkdtm.h | 2 --
> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/bugs.c b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/bugs.c
> index a4fdad04809a..22f5293414cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/bugs.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/bugs.c
> @@ -342,9 +342,9 @@ void lkdtm_UNSET_SMEP(void)
> #endif
> }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> void lkdtm_DOUBLE_FAULT(void)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> /*
> * Trigger #DF by setting the stack limit to zero. This clobbers
> * a GDT TLS slot, which is okay because the current task will die
> @@ -373,6 +373,8 @@ void lkdtm_DOUBLE_FAULT(void)
> asm volatile ("movw %0, %%ss; addl $0, (%%esp)" ::
> "r" ((unsigned short)(GDT_ENTRY_TLS_MIN << 3)));
>
> - panic("tried to double fault but didn't die\n");
> -}
> + pr_err("FAIL: tried to double fault but didn't die!\n");
> +#else
> + pr_err("FAIL: this test is only available on 32-bit x86.\n");
> #endif
> +}
I’m not familiar with the userspace tooling, but this seems unfortunate. The first FAIL is “the test case screwed up, and it’s a bug.” The second FAIL is “not applicable to this system.”
ISTM simply not exposing the test on systems that don’t support makes sense. Can you clarify?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists