Message-ID: <73904829-0BAC-41BA-BFD7-025B1645F698@zytor.com>
Date:   Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:17:14 -0700
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
CC:     "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
        "ndesaulniers@...gle.com" <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        "Syromiatnikov, Eugene" <esyr@...hat.com>,
        "babu.moger@....com" <babu.moger@....com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.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>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "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>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>, "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com" <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        "Moreira, Joao" <joao.moreira@...el.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "mike.kravetz@...cle.com" <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gustavoars@...nel.org" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        "rppt@...nel.org" <rppt@...nel.org>,
        "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 33/39] x86/cpufeatures: Limit shadow stack to Intel CPUs

On October 4, 2022 1:50:20 PM PDT, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 08:34:54PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
>> On Tue, 2022-10-04 at 14:43 -0500, John Allen wrote:
>> > On 10/4/22 10:47 AM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>> > > Hi Kees,
>> > > 
>> > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 09:54:26PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 05:09:04PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> > > > > On 10/3/22 16:57, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:29:30PM -0700, Rick Edgecombe
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > Shadow stack is supported on newer AMD processors, but the
>> > > > > > > kernel
>> > > > > > > implementation has not been tested on them. Prevent basic
>> > > > > > > issues from
>> > > > > > > showing up for normal users by disabling shadow stack on
>> > > > > > > all CPUs except
>> > > > > > > Intel until it has been tested. At which point the
>> > > > > > > limitation should be
>> > > > > > > removed.
>> > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > So running the selftests on an AMD system is sufficient to
>> > > > > > drop this
>> > > > > > patch?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Yes, that's enough.
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > I _thought_ the AMD folks provided some tested-by's at some
>> > > > > point in the
>> > > > > past.  But, maybe I'm confusing this for one of the other
>> > > > > shared
>> > > > > features.  Either way, I'm sure no tested-by's were dropped on
>> > > > > purpose.
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > I'm sure Rick is eager to trim down his series and this would
>> > > > > be a great
>> > > > > patch to drop.  Does anyone want to make that easy for Rick?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > <hint> <hint>
>> > > > 
>> > > > Hey Gustavo, Nathan, or Nick! I know y'all have some fancy AMD
>> > > > testing
>> > > > rigs. Got a moment to spin up this series and run the selftests?
>> > > > :)
>> > > 
>> > > I do have access to a system with an EPYC 7513, which does have
>> > > Shadow
>> > > Stack support (I can see 'shstk' in the "Flags" section of lscpu
>> > > with
>> > > this series). As far as I understand it, AMD only added Shadow
>> > > Stack
>> > > with Zen 3; my regular AMD test system is Zen 2 (probably should
>> > > look at
>> > > procurring a Zen 3 or Zen 4 one at some point).
>> > > 
>> > > I applied this series on top of 6.0 and reverted this change then
>> > > booted
>> > > it on that system. After building the selftest (which did require
>> > > 'make headers_install' and a small addition to make it build beyond
>> > > that, see below), I ran it and this was the result. I am not sure
>> > > if
>> > > that is expected or not but the other results seem promising for
>> > > dropping this patch.
>> > > 
>> > >    $ ./test_shadow_stack_64
>> > >    [INFO]  new_ssp = 7f8a36c9fff8, *new_ssp = 7f8a36ca0001
>> > >    [INFO]  changing ssp from 7f8a374a0ff0 to 7f8a36c9fff8
>> > >    [INFO]  ssp is now 7f8a36ca0000
>> > >    [OK]    Shadow stack pivot
>> > >    [OK]    Shadow stack faults
>> > >    [INFO]  Corrupting shadow stack
>> > >    [INFO]  Generated shadow stack violation successfully
>> > >    [OK]    Shadow stack violation test
>> > >    [INFO]  Gup read -> shstk access success
>> > >    [INFO]  Gup write -> shstk access success
>> > >    [INFO]  Violation from normal write
>> > >    [INFO]  Gup read -> write access success
>> > >    [INFO]  Violation from normal write
>> > >    [INFO]  Gup write -> write access success
>> > >    [INFO]  Cow gup write -> write access success
>> > >    [OK]    Shadow gup test
>> > >    [INFO]  Violation from shstk access
>> > >    [OK]    mprotect() test
>> > >    [OK]    Userfaultfd test
>> > >    [FAIL]  Alt shadow stack test
>> > 
>> > The selftest is looking OK on my system (Dell PowerEdge R6515 w/ EPYC
>> > 7713). I also just pulled a fresh 6.0 kernel and applied the series
>> > including the fix Nathan mentions below.
>> > 
>> > $ tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack_64
>> > [INFO]  new_ssp = 7f30cccc5ff8, *new_ssp = 7f30cccc6001
>> > [INFO]  changing ssp from 7f30cd4c6ff0 to 7f30cccc5ff8
>> > [INFO]  ssp is now 7f30cccc6000
>> > [OK]    Shadow stack pivot
>> > [OK]    Shadow stack faults
>> > [INFO]  Corrupting shadow stack
>> > [INFO]  Generated shadow stack violation successfully
>> > [OK]    Shadow stack violation test
>> > [INFO]  Gup read -> shstk access success
>> > [INFO]  Gup write -> shstk access success
>> > [INFO]  Violation from normal write
>> > [INFO]  Gup read -> write access success
>> > [INFO]  Violation from normal write
>> > [INFO]  Gup write -> write access success
>> > [INFO]  Cow gup write -> write access success
>> > [OK]    Shadow gup test
>> > [INFO]  Violation from shstk access
>> > [OK]    mprotect() test
>> > [OK]    Userfaultfd test
>> > [OK]    Alt shadow stack test.
>> 
>> Thanks for the testing. Based on the test, I wonder if this could be a
>> SW bug. Nathan, could I send you a tweaked test with some more debug
>> information?
>
>Yes, more than happy to help you look into this further!
>
>> John, are we sure AMD and Intel systems behave the same with respect to
>> CPUs not creating Dirty=1,Write=0 PTEs in rare situations? Or any other
>> CET related differences we should hash out? Otherwise I'll drop the
>> patch for the next version. (and assuming the issue Nathan hit doesn't
>> turn up anything HW related).

I have to admit to being a bit confused here... in general, we trust CPUID bits unless they are *known* to be wrong, in which case we blacklist them.

If AMD advertises the feature but it doesn't work or they didn't validate it, that would be a (serious!) bug on their part that we can address by blacklisting, but they should also fix with a microcode/BIOS patch.

What am I missing?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists