[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a770d45d-b147-a8c5-b7f8-30d668cbed84@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 11:13:48 -0700
From: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
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>,
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>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 25/25] x86/cet/shstk: Add arch_prctl functions for
shadow stack
On 8/27/2020 6:36 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * H. J. Lu:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:19 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> * Dave Martin:
>>>
>>>> You're right that this has implications: for i386, libc probably pulls
>>>> more arguments off the stack than are really there in some situations.
>>>> This isn't a new problem though. There are already generic prctls with
>>>> fewer than 4 args that are used on x86.
>>>
>>> As originally posted, glibc prctl would have to know that it has to pull
>>> an u64 argument off the argument list for ARCH_X86_CET_DISABLE. But
>>> then the u64 argument is a problem for arch_prctl as well.
>>>
>>
>> Argument of ARCH_X86_CET_DISABLE is int and passed in register.
>
> The commit message and the C source say otherwise, I think (not sure
> about the C source, not a kernel hacker).
>
H.J. Lu suggested that we fix x86 arch_prctl() to take four arguments,
and then keep MMAP_SHSTK as an arch_prctl(). Because now the map flags
and size are all in registers, this also solves problems being pointed
out earlier. Without a wrapper, the shadow stack mmap call (from user
space) will be:
syscall(_NR_arch_prctl, ARCH_X86_CET_MMAP_SHSTK, size, MAP_32BIT).
I think this would be a nice alternative to another new syscall.
If this looks good to everyone, I can send out new patches as response
to my current version, and then after all issues fixed, send v12.
Thanks,
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists