[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yweu1dvkJ8aV+C+T@google.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 17:18:13 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Refuse W^X violations
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> x86 has STRICT_*_RWX, but not even a warning when someone violates it.
>
> Add this warning and fully refuse the transition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> index 1abd5438f126..9e9bef3f36b3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> @@ -579,6 +579,30 @@ static inline pgprot_t static_protections(pgprot_t prot, unsigned long start,
> return __pgprot(pgprot_val(prot) & ~forbidden);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Validate and enforce strict W^X semantics.
> + */
> +static inline pgprot_t verify_rwx(pgprot_t old, pgprot_t new, unsigned long start,
> + unsigned long pfn, unsigned long npg)
> +{
> + unsigned long end;
> +
I think this needs
if (!(__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX))
return new;
to play nice with non-PAE 32-bit kernels.
> + if (!((pgprot_val(old) ^ pgprot_val(new)) & (_PAGE_RW | _PAGE_NX)))
> + return new;
> +
> + if ((pgprot_val(new) & (_PAGE_RW | _PAGE_NX)) != _PAGE_RW)
> + return new;
> +
> + end = start + npg * PAGE_SIZE - 1;
> + WARN(1, "CPA refuse W^X violation: %016llx -> %016llx range: 0x%016lx - 0x%016lx PFN %lx\n",
WARN_ONCE() to avoid eternal spam if something does go sideways?
> + (unsigned long long)pgprot_val(old),
> + (unsigned long long)pgprot_val(new),
> + start, end, pfn);
> +
> + /* refuse the transition into WX */
> + return old;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists