linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 11/21] x86/pti: Extend PTI user mappings

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: <CALCETrWRBG5fuqZNbrYCKnxSiO9we_sTVWpWwa8GOj8j1UfZPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 07:49:53 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        jan.setjeeilers@...cle.com, Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
        oweisse@...gle.com, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.de>, mgross@...ux.intel.com,
        kuzuno@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 11/21] x86/pti: Extend PTI user mappings

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:42 AM Alexandre Chartre
<alexandre.chartre@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/17/20 12:06 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:18 PM Alexandre Chartre
> > <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/16/20 8:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:49 AM Alexandre Chartre
> >>> <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Extend PTI user mappings so that more kernel entry code can be executed
> >>>> with the user page-table. To do so, we need to map syscall and interrupt
> >>>> entry code, per cpu offsets (__per_cpu_offset, which is used some in
> >>>> entry code), the stack canary, and the PTI stack (which is defined per
> >>>> task).
> >>>
> >>> Does anything unmap the PTI stack?  Mapping is easy, and unmapping
> >>> could be a pretty big mess.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, there's no unmap. The mapping exists as long as the task page-table
> >> does (i.e. as long as the task mm exits). I assume that the task stack
> >> and mm are freed at the same time but that's not something I have checked.
> >>
> >
> > Nope.  A multi-threaded mm will free task stacks when the task exits,
> > but the mm may outlive the individual tasks.  Additionally, if you
> > allocate page tables as part of mapping PTI stacks, you need to make
> > sure the pagetables are freed.
>
> So I think I just need to unmap the PTI stack from the user page-table
> when the task exits. Everything else is handled because the kernel and
> PTI stack are allocated in a single chunk (referenced by task->stack).
>
>
> >  Finally, you need to make sure that
> > the PTI stacks have appropriate guard pages -- just doubling the
> > allocation is not safe enough.
>
> The PTI stack does have guard pages because it maps only a part of the task
> stack into the user page-table, so pages around the PTI stack are not mapped
> into the user-pagetable (the page below is the task stack guard, and the page
> above is part of the kernel-only stack so it's never mapped into the user
> page-table).
>
> + *   +-------------+
> + *   |             | ^                       ^
> + *   | kernel-only | | KERNEL_STACK_SIZE     |
> + *   |    stack    | |                       |
> + *   |             | V                       |
> + *   +-------------+ <- top of kernel stack  | THREAD_SIZE
> + *   |             | ^                       |
> + *   | kernel and  | | KERNEL_STACK_SIZE     |
> + *   | PTI stack   | |                       |
> + *   |             | V                       v
> + *   +-------------+ <- top of stack

There's no guard page between the stacks.  That seems unfortunate.

>
> > My intuition is that this is going to be far more complexity than is justified.
>
> Sounds like only the PTI stack unmap is missing, which is hopefully not
> that bad. I will check that.
>
> alex.