[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a7c64629-16f4-69db-07f8-ad22d8602034@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:24:10 -0700
From: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
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>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.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>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>,
Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v23 00/28] Control-flow Enforcement: Shadow Stack
On 3/17/2021 2:18 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Yu, Yu-cheng <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2021 2:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 08:10:26AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>>>> Control-flow Enforcement (CET) is a new Intel processor feature that blocks
>>>> return/jump-oriented programming attacks. Details are in "Intel 64 and
>>>> IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manual" [1].
>>>>
>>>> CET can protect applications and the kernel. This series enables only
>>>> application-level protection, and has three parts:
>>>>
>>>> - Shadow stack [2],
>>>> - Indirect branch tracking [3], and
>>>> - Selftests [4].
>>>
>>> CET is marketing; afaict SS and IBT are 100% independent and there's no
>>> reason what so ever to have them share any code, let alone a Kconfig
>>> knob.
>>
>> We used to have shadow stack and ibt under separate Kconfig options, but in
>> a few places they actually share same code path, such as the XSAVES
>> supervisor states and ELF header for example. Anyways I will be happy to
>> make changes again if there is agreement.
>
> I was look at:
>
> x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce CET MSR and XSAVES supervisor states
>
> didn't see any IBT logic - it's essentially all shadow stack state.
>
> Which is not surprising, forward call edge integrity protection (IBT)
> requires very little state, does it?
>
> With IBT there's no nesting, no stack - the IBT state machine
> basically requires the next instruction to be and ENDBR instruction,
> and that's essentially it, right?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
Yes, that is it. The CET_WAIT_ENDBR bit is the status of IBT state
machine. There are a few bits in MSR_IA32_U_CET controlling how IBT
works, but those are not status.
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists