linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/39] x86/cet: Add user control-protection fault handler

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: <202210031055.62E60F6BBE@keescook>
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:04:27 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc:     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>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "Ravi V . Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        joao.moreira@...el.com, John Allen <john.allen@....com>,
        kcc@...gle.com, eranian@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org,
        jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com, dethoma@...rosoft.com,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/39] x86/cet: Add user control-protection fault
 handler

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:29:04PM -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> [...]
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT
> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT) || defined(CONFIG_X86_SHADOW_STACK)

This pattern is repeated several times. Perhaps there needs to be a
CONFIG_X86_CET to make this more readable? Really just a style question.

diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index b68eb75887b8..6cb52616e0cf 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -1836,6 +1836,11 @@ config CC_HAS_IBT
 		  (CC_IS_CLANG && CLANG_VERSION >= 140000)) && \
 		  $(as-instr,endbr64)
 
+config X86_CET
+	def_bool n
+	help
+	  CET features are enabled (IBT and/or Shadow Stack)
+
 config X86_KERNEL_IBT
 	prompt "Indirect Branch Tracking"
 	bool
@@ -1843,6 +1848,7 @@ config X86_KERNEL_IBT
 	# https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/9d7001eba9c4cb311e03cd8cdc231f9e579f2d0f
 	depends on !LD_IS_LLD || LLD_VERSION >= 140000
 	select OBJTOOL
+	select X86_CET
 	help
 	  Build the kernel with support for Indirect Branch Tracking, a
 	  hardware support course-grain forward-edge Control Flow Integrity
@@ -1945,6 +1951,7 @@ config X86_SHADOW_STACK
 	def_bool n
 	depends on ARCH_HAS_SHADOW_STACK
 	select ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS
+	select X86_CET
 	help
 	  Shadow Stack protection is a hardware feature that detects function
 	  return address corruption. Today the kernel's support is limited to

> [...]
> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT) || defined(CONFIG_X86_SHADOW_STACK)
> +DEFINE_IDTENTRY_ERRORCODE(exc_control_protection)
> +{
> +	if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_IBT) &&
> +	    !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK)) {
> +		pr_err("Unexpected #CP\n");
> +		BUG();
> +	}

I second Kirill's question here. This seems an entirely survivable
(but highly unexpected) state. I think this whole "if" could just be
replaced with:

	WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_IBT) &&
		     !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK),
		     "Unexpected #CP\n");

Otherwise this looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook