[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a6de6b9d-d724-271d-72b2-8dd3418ccaed@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:33:56 -0700
From: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, 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 11:56 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 27, 2020, at 11:13 AM, Yu, Yu-cheng <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 admit I don’t see a show stopping technical reason we can’t add arguments to an existing syscall, but I’m pretty sure it’s unprecedented, and it doesn’t seem like a good idea.
>
There are nine existing arch_prctl calls now. If the concern is the
extra new arguments getting misused, we can mask them out for the
existing calls. Otherwise, I have not seen anything that can break.
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists