linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/x86: sysret_rip: Add more syscall tests with respect to `%rcx` and `%r11`

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:41:20 +0700
From:   Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     x86 Mailing List <x86@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kselftest Mailing List 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/x86: sysret_rip: Add more syscall
 tests with respect to `%rcx` and `%r11`

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 10:16:01PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 1/23/23 18:27, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> > Test that:
> > 
> >   - "syscall" in a FRED system doesn't clobber %rcx and %r11.
> >   - "syscall" in a non-FRED system sets %rcx=%rip and %r11=%rflags.
> > 
> > Test them out with a trivial system call like __NR_getppid and friends
> > which are extremely likely to return with SYSRET on an IDT system; check
> > that it returns a nonnegative value and then save the result.
> > 
> 
> "Nonnegative" here should be "valid"; it is an implementation detail that
> the error value is -1.

Copy-paste error, will fix that!

> However, you are not checking that you don't get a mix of REGS_SAVED and
> REGS_SYSRET, which is a major part of the point.

Good point!

What do you think of adding this on top of patch #1?

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c
index 75c72d34dbc5840c..3da827713831acbc 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c
@@ -47,11 +47,14 @@ static const unsigned long rcx_sentinel = 0x5ca1ab1e0b57ac1e;
 static const unsigned long rflags_sentinel = 0x200a93;
 
 enum regs_ok {
-	REGS_ERROR  = -1,	/* Invalid register contents */
-	REGS_SAVED  =  0,	/* Registers properly preserved */
-	REGS_SYSRET =  1	/* Registers match syscall/sysret */
+	REGS_INIT_VAL	= -2,	/* For init value checker, never returned */
+	REGS_ERROR 	= -1,	/* Invalid register contents */
+	REGS_SAVED 	=  0,	/* Registers properly preserved */
+	REGS_SYSRET	=  1	/* Registers match syscall/sysret */
 };
 
+static enum regs_ok regs_ok_state = REGS_INIT_VAL;
+
 /*
  * Returns:
  *  0 = %rcx and %r11 preserved.
@@ -86,6 +89,7 @@ static long do_syscall(long nr_syscall, unsigned long arg1, unsigned long arg2,
 	register unsigned long r9 asm("%r9");
 	register void *rsp asm("%rsp");
 	unsigned long rcx, rbx;
+	enum regs_ok ret;
 
 	r11 = r11_sentinel;
 	rcx = rcx_sentinel;
@@ -124,7 +128,14 @@ static long do_syscall(long nr_syscall, unsigned long arg1, unsigned long arg2,
 	 * - "syscall" in a non-FRED system sets %rcx=%rip and %r11=%rflags.
 	 *
 	 */
-	assert(check_regs_result(r11, rcx, rbx) != REGS_ERROR);
+	ret = check_regs_result(r11, rcx, rbx);
+	assert(ret != REGS_ERROR);
+
+	if (regs_ok_state == REGS_INIT_VAL)
+		regs_ok_state = ret;
+	else
+		assert(ret == regs_ok_state);
+
 	return nr_syscall;
 }
 
-- 
Ammar Faizi