linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 25/25] x86/cet/shstk: Add arch

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: <CAMe9rOrt5hz6qsNAxPgdKCOhRcKKESv-D3rxdSfraeJ-LFHM4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:44:27 -0700
From:   "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, 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 Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:35 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 12:38 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:56 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> 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.
> >
> > prctl prototype is:
> >
> > extern int prctl (int __option, ...)
> >
> > and implemented in kernel as:
> >
> >       int prctl(int option, unsigned long arg2, unsigned long arg3,
> >                  unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5);
> >
> > Not all prctl operations take all 5 arguments.   It also applies
> > to arch_prctl.  It is quite normal for different operations of
> > arch_prctl to take different numbers of arguments.
>
> If by "quite normal" you mean "does not happen", then I agree.
>
> In any event, I will not have anything to do with a patch that changes
> an existing syscall signature unless Linus personally acks it.  So if
> you want to email him and linux-abi, be my guest.

Can you think of ANY issues of passing more arguments to arch_prctl?
syscall () provided by glibc always passes 6 arguments to the kernel.
Arguments are already in the registers.  What kind of problems do
you see?

-- 
H.J.