[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a8f55ca9d7ca81b4acb7afecd8144aa396975cfb.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 16:23:38 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
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@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
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>,
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>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] selftest/x86: Add CET quick test
On Thu, 2020-05-21 at 16:02 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 02:17:20PM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > Introduce a quick test to verify shadow stack and IBT are working.
>
> Cool! :)
>
> I'd love to see either more of a commit log or more comments in the test
> code itself. I had to spend a bit of time trying to understand how the
> test was working. (i.e. using ucontext to "reset", using segv handler to
> catch some of them, etc.) I have not yet figured out why you need to
> send USR1/USR2 for two of them instead of direct calls?
Yes, I will work on it.
[...]
> > +
> > +#pragma GCC push_options
> > +#pragma GCC optimize ("O0")
>
> Can you avoid compiler-specific pragmas? (Or verify that Clang also
> behaves correctly here?) Maybe it's better to just build the entire file
> with -O0 in the Makefile?
This file is compiled using -O2 in the makefile. I will see if other ways are
possible.
[...]
> > +
> > +void segv_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *si, void *uc)
> > +{
>
> Does anything in siginfo_t indicate which kind of failure you're
> detecting? It'd be nice to verify test_id matches the failure mode being
> tested.
Yes, there is an si_code for control-protection fault.
I will fix this.
Agree with your other comments.
Thanks,
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists