linux-kernel - Re: [OPTIONAL/RFC v2 39/39] x86: Add alt shadow stack support

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: <1ff55bc4da14df8d133f44987d4778fcc9d2951d.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 18:04:51 +0000
From:   "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To:     "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>,
        "Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.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>,
        "dethoma@...rosoft.com" <dethoma@...rosoft.com>,
        "kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "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>,
        "jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com" <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Moreira, Joao" <joao.moreira@...el.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
        "mike.kravetz@...cle.com" <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rppt@...nel.org" <rppt@...nel.org>,
        "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...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>
Subject: Re: [OPTIONAL/RFC v2 39/39] x86: Add alt shadow stack support

On Tue, 2022-10-04 at 10:46 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > The busy-like bit in the RSTORSSP-type token is not called out as a
> > busy bit, but instead defined as reserved (must be 0) in some
> > states.
> > (Note, it is different than the supervisor shadow stack format).
> > Yea,
> > we could just probably use it like RSTORSSP does for this
> > operation.
> > 
> > Or just invent another new token format and stay away from bits
> > marked
> > reserved. Then it wouldn't have to be atomic either, since
> > userspace
> > couldn't use it.
> 
> But userspace *can* use it by delivering a signal.  I consider the
> scenario where two user threads set up the same altshstk and take
> signals concurrently to be about as dangerous and about as likely
> (under accidental or malicious conditions) as two user threads doing
> RSTORSSP at the same time.  Someone at Intel thought the latter was a
> big deal, so maybe we should match its behavior.

Right, for alt shadow stack there should be some busy like checking or
that could happen. For regular on-thread stack signals (earlier in this
series) we don't need a busy bit.