Message-ID: <Y6HglBhrccduDTQA@zn.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2022 17:19:32 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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>,
        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>,
        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 <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        John Allen <john.allen@....com>, kcc@...gle.com,
        eranian@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org, jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com,
        dethoma@...rosoft.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com, christina.schimpe@...el.com,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/39] x86: Add user control-protection fault handler

On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 04:35:34PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
> 
> A control-protection fault is triggered when a control-flow transfer
> attempt violates Shadow Stack or Indirect Branch Tracking constraints.
> For example, the return address for a RET instruction differs from the copy
> on the shadow stack.
> 
> There already exists a control-protection fault handler for handling kernel
> IBT. Refactor this fault handler into sparate user and kernel handlers,

Unknown word [sparate] in commit message.
Suggestions: ['separate', 

You could use a spellchecker with your commit messages so that it
catches all those typos.

...

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> index 8b83d8fbce71..e35c70dc1afb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -213,12 +213,7 @@ DEFINE_IDTENTRY(exc_overflow)
>  	do_error_trap(regs, 0, "overflow", X86_TRAP_OF, SIGSEGV, 0, NULL);
>  }
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT
> -
> -static __ro_after_init bool ibt_fatal = true;
> -
> -extern void ibt_selftest_ip(void); /* code label defined in asm below */
> -
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_CET
>  enum cp_error_code {
>  	CP_EC        = (1 << 15) - 1,
>  
> @@ -231,15 +226,87 @@ enum cp_error_code {
>  	CP_ENCL	     = 1 << 15,
>  };
>  
> -DEFINE_IDTENTRY_ERRORCODE(exc_control_protection)
> +static const char control_protection_err[][10] = {

You already use the "cp_" prefix for the other things, might as well use
it here too.

> +	[0] = "unknown",
> +	[1] = "near ret",
> +	[2] = "far/iret",
> +	[3] = "endbranch",
> +	[4] = "rstorssp",
> +	[5] = "setssbsy",
> +};
> +
> +static const char *cp_err_string(unsigned long error_code)
> +{
> +	unsigned int cpec = error_code & CP_EC;
> +
> +	if (cpec >= ARRAY_SIZE(control_protection_err))
> +		cpec = 0;
> +	return control_protection_err[cpec];
> +}
> +
> +static void do_unexpected_cp(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code)
> +{
> +	WARN_ONCE(1, "Unexpected %s #CP, error_code: %s\n",
> +		     user_mode(regs) ? "user mode" : "kernel mode",
> +		     cp_err_string(error_code));
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_X86_CET */
> +
> +void do_user_cp_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code);

What's that forward declaration for?

In any case, push it into traps.h pls.

I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of that ifdeffery here. Do we really
really need it?

> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_USER_SHADOW_STACK
> +static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(cpf_rate, DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL,
> +			      DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST);
> +
> +void do_user_cp_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code)
>  {
> -	if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_IBT)) {
> -		pr_err("Unexpected #CP\n");
> -		BUG();
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +	unsigned long ssp;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * An exception was just taken from userspace. Since interrupts are disabled
> +	 * here, no scheduling should have messed with the registers yet and they
> +	 * will be whatever is live in userspace. So read the SSP before enabling
> +	 * interrupts so locking the fpregs to do it later is not required.
> +	 */
> +	rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP, ssp);
> +
> +	cond_local_irq_enable(regs);
> +
> +	tsk = current;
> +	tsk->thread.error_code = error_code;
> +	tsk->thread.trap_nr = X86_TRAP_CP;
> +
> +	/* Ratelimit to prevent log spamming. */
> +	if (show_unhandled_signals && unhandled_signal(tsk, SIGSEGV) &&
> +	    __ratelimit(&cpf_rate)) {
> +		pr_emerg("%s[%d] control protection ip:%lx sp:%lx ssp:%lx error:%lx(%s)%s",
> +			 tsk->comm, task_pid_nr(tsk),
> +			 regs->ip, regs->sp, ssp, error_code,
> +			 cp_err_string(error_code),
> +			 error_code & CP_ENCL ? " in enclave" : "");
> +		print_vma_addr(KERN_CONT " in ", regs->ip);
> +		pr_cont("\n");
>  	}
>  
> -	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(user_mode(regs) || (error_code & CP_EC) != CP_ENDBR))
> +	force_sig_fault(SIGSEGV, SEGV_CPERR, (void __user *)0);
> +	cond_local_irq_disable(regs);
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +void do_kernel_cp_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT
> +static __ro_after_init bool ibt_fatal = true;
> +
> +extern void ibt_selftest_ip(void); /* code label defined in asm below */

Yeah, pls put that comment above the function. Side comments are nasty.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Powered by blists - more mailing lists