linux-kernel - Re: [NEEDS-REVIEW] 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: <41aa5e8f-ad88-2934-6d10-6a78fcbe019b@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:50:49 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.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: [NEEDS-REVIEW] Re: [PATCH v11 25/25] x86/cet/shstk: Add
 arch_prctl functions for shadow stack

On 9/11/20 3:59 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
...
> Here are the changes if we take the mprotect(PROT_SHSTK) approach.
> Any comments/suggestions?

I still don't like it. :)

I'll also be much happier when there's a proper changelog to accompany
this which also spells out the alternatives any why they suck so much.

> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/mman.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/mman.h
> index d4a8d0424bfb..024f006fcfe8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/mman.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/mman.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>  
>  #define MAP_32BIT	0x40		/* only give out 32bit addresses */
>  
> +#define PROT_SHSTK	0x10		/* shadow stack pages */
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
>  /*
>   * Take the 4 protection key bits out of the vma->vm_flags
> @@ -19,13 +21,35 @@
>  		((vm_flags) & VM_PKEY_BIT2 ? _PAGE_PKEY_BIT2 : 0) |	\
>  		((vm_flags) & VM_PKEY_BIT3 ? _PAGE_PKEY_BIT3 : 0))
>  
> -#define arch_calc_vm_prot_bits(prot, key) (		\
> +#define pkey_vm_prot_bits(prot, key) (			\
>  		((key) & 0x1 ? VM_PKEY_BIT0 : 0) |      \
>  		((key) & 0x2 ? VM_PKEY_BIT1 : 0) |      \
>  		((key) & 0x4 ? VM_PKEY_BIT2 : 0) |      \
>  		((key) & 0x8 ? VM_PKEY_BIT3 : 0))
> +#else
> +#define pkey_vm_prot_bits(prot, key)
>  #endif

My inner compiler doesn't think this will compile:

	( | shstk_vm_prot_bits(prot))


> +#define shstk_vm_prot_bits(prot) ( \
> +		(static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) && (prot & PROT_SHSTK)) ? \
> +		VM_SHSTK : 0)

Why do you need to filter PROT_SHSTK twice.  Won't the prot passed in
here be filtered by arch_validate_prot()?

> +#define arch_calc_vm_prot_bits(prot, key) \
> +		(pkey_vm_prot_bits(prot, key) | shstk_vm_prot_bits(prot))
> +

IMNHO, this is eminently more readable if you do:

#define arch_calc_vm_prot_bits(prot, key)	\
		(shstk_vm_prot_bits(prot))	\
		  pkey_vm_prot_bits(prot, key))

BTW, can these be static inlines?  I forget if I had a good reason for
making them #defines.

> +static inline bool arch_validate_prot(unsigned long prot, unsigned long addr)
> +{
> +	unsigned long supported = PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC | PROT_SEM;
> +
> +	if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) && (prot & PROT_SHSTK))
> +		supported |= PROT_SHSTK;
> +	else
> +		supported |= PROT_WRITE;

I generally like to make the common case dirt simple to understand.
That would probably be:

	unsigned long supported = PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE |
				  PROT_EXEC | PROT_SEM;

	if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) && (prot & PROT_SHSTK)) {
		supported |= PROT_SHSTK;
		// Comment about why SHSTK and WRITE
		// are mutually exclusive.

		supported &= ~PROT_WRITE;
	}

>  #endif /* _ASM_X86_MMAN_H */
> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> index a8edbcb3af99..520bd8caa005 100644
> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> @@ -571,6 +571,17 @@ static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t
> len,
>  				goto out;
>  		}
>  	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Only anonymous mapping is suitable for shadow stack.
> +	 */

Why?

> +	if (prot & PROT_SHSTK) {
> +		if (vma->vm_file) {
> +			error = -EINVAL;
> +			goto out;
> +		}
> +	}

You can also save a couple of lines there.  The two conditions are
pretty small.