[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aeb9d7079ee784def9601498f9fff08db981fd9c.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 01:22:50 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Syromiatnikov, Eugene" <esyr@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"nadav.amit@...il.com" <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
"Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"Moreira, Joao" <joao.moreira@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mike.kravetz@...cle.com" <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"Dave.Martin@....com" <Dave.Martin@....com>,
"john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"gorcunov@...il.com" <gorcunov@...il.com>
CC: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 33/35] selftests/x86: Add map_shadow_stack syscall test
On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 14:42 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> This is a good start for the selftest. But, it would be really nice
> to
> see a few additional smoke tests in here that are independent of the
> library support.
Sure. I had actually included this just because the "adding a syscall"
docs said to make sure to include a test for the syscall. There are
some other tests that were being planned as a follow up.
>
> For instance, it would be nice to have tests that:
>
> 1. Write to the shadow stack with normal instructions (and recover
> from
> the inevitable SEGV). Make sure the siginfo looks like we expect.
> 2. Corrupt the regular stack, or maybe just use a retpoline
> do induce a shadow stack exception. Ditto on checking the siginfo
> 3. Do enough CALLs that will likely trigger a fault and an on-demand
> shadow stack page allocation.
>
> That will test the *basics* and should be pretty simple to write.
Most of this already exists in the private tests. I'll combine it into
a single selftest. Having wrss now nicely made it a bit easier because
those writes are treated as shadow stack accesses, so we can do these
operations directly without too much calling acrobatics.
Thanks,
Rick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists