[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YgKiKEcsNt7mpMHN@grain>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 20:02:32 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Adrian Reber <adrian@...as.de>,
Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
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>,
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>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"Moreira, Joao" <joao.moreira@...el.com>,
"john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
"kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>,
"Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35] Shadow stacks for userspace
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 08:21:20AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> But such a knob will immediately reduce the security value of the entire
> >> thing, and I don't have good ideas how to deal with it :(
> >
> > Probably a kind of latch in the task_struct which would trigger off once
> > returt to a different address happened, thus we would be able to jump inside
> > paratite code. Of course such trigger should be available under proper
> > capability only.
>
> I'm not fully in touch with how parasite, etc works. Are we talking about save or restore?
We use parasite code in question during checkpoint phase as far as I remember.
push addr/lret trick is used to run "injected" code (code injection itself is
done via ptrace) in compat mode at least. Dima, Andrei, I didn't look into this code
for years already, do we still need to support compat mode at all?
> If it's restore, what exactly does CRIU need to do? Is it just that CRIU needs to return
> out from its resume code into the to-be-resumed program without tripping CET? Would it
> be acceptable for CRIU to require that at least one shstk slot be free at save time?
> Or do we need a mechanism to atomically switch to a completely full shadow stack at resume?
>
> Off the top of my head, a sigreturn (or sigreturn-like mechanism) that is intended for
> use for altshadowstack could safely verify a token on the altshdowstack, possibly
> compare to something in ucontext (or not -- this isn't clearly necessary) and switch
> back to the previous stack. CRIU could use that too. Obviously CRIU will need a way
> to populate the relevant stacks, but WRUSS can be used for that, and I think this
> is a fundamental requirement for CRIU -- CRIU restore absolutely needs a way to write
> the saved shadow stack data into the shadow stack.
>
> So I think the only special capability that CRIU really needs is WRUSS, and
> we need to wire that up anyway.
Thanks for these notes, Andy! I can't provide any sane answer here since didn't
read tech spec for this feature yet :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists