linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 18/39] mm: Handle faultless write upgrades for shstk

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: <349bbece-485c-4898-4583-b8f588f8322f@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 17:19:59 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "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>,
        "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>, "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com" <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        "Schimpe, Christina" <christina.schimpe@...el.com>,
        "mike.kravetz@...cle.com" <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
        "rppt@...nel.org" <rppt@...nel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.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>
Cc:     "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 18/39] mm: Handle faultless write upgrades for shstk

> 
> Now shadow stack memory creation is tightly controlled. Either created
> via special syscall or automatically with a new thread.

Good, it would be valuable to document that somewhere ("Neve rapplies to 
VM_SHARED|VM_MAYSHARE VMAs").

[...]

>>
>> The other thing I had in mind was that we have to make sure that
>> we're
>> not accidentally setting "Write=0,Dirty=1" in mk_pte() /
>> pte_modify().
>>
>> Assume we had a "Write=1,Dirty=1" PTE, and we effectively wrprotect
>> using pte_modify(), we have to make sure to move the dirty bit to
>> the
>> saved_dirty bit.
> 
> For the mk_pte() case, I don't think a Write=0,Dirty=1 prot could come
> from anywhere. I guess the MAP_SHARED case is a little less bounded. We
> could maybe add a warning for this case.

Right, Write=0,Dirty=1  shouldn't apply at that point if shstk are 
always wrprotected as default.

> 
> For the pte_modify() case, this does happen. There are two scenarios
> considered:
> 1. A Write=0,Dirty=0 PTE is made dirty. This can't happen today as
> Dirty is filtered via _PAGE_CHG_MASK. Basically pte_modify() doesn't
> support it.

It should simply set the saved_dirty bit I guess. But I don't think 
pte_modify() is actually supposed to set PTEs dirty (primary goal is to 
change protection IIRC).

> 2. A Write=1,Dirty=1 PTE gets write protected. This does happen because
> the Write=0 prot comes from protection_map, and pte_modify() would
> leave the Dirty=1 bit alone. The main case I know of is mprotect(). It
> is handled by changes to pte_modify() by doing the Dirty->SoftDirty
> fixup if needed.

Right, we'd have to move the dirty bit to the saved_dirty bit. (we have 
to handle soft-dirty, too, whenever setting the PTE dirty -- either via 
the dirty bit or via the saved_dirty bit)

> 
> So pte_modify()s job should not be too tricky. What you can't do with
> it though, is create shadow stack PTEs. But it is ok for our uses
> because of the explicit mkwrite().

I think you are correct.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb