[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230220030959.119222-3-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:09:58 +0700
From: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>
Cc: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
x86 Mailing List <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kselftest Mailing List
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@...r.gnuweeb.org>
Subject: [RESEND RFC PATCH v8 2/3] selftests/x86: sysret_rip: Add more tests to verify the 'syscall' behavior
There are two cases:
A) 'syscall' in a FRED system preserves %rcx and %r11.
B) 'syscall' in a non-FRED system sets %rcx=%rip and %r11=%rflags.
When the do_syscall() function is called for the first time, it will
memorize the behavior, either (A) or (B). Then, the next do_syscall()
call will verify that the 'syscall' behavior is the same.
Test them with trivial system calls like __NR_getppid and friends, which
are highly likely to return with SYSRET on an IDT system.
The purposes of this test are:
- Ensure that the syscall behavior is consistent. It must always be
(A) or always be (B). Not a mix of them.
- Ensure that the kernel doesn't leak its internal data when returning
to userspace.
Cc: Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/25b96960-a07e-a952-5c23-786b55054126@zytor.com
Co-developed-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@...or.com>
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@...or.com>
Signed-off-by: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c
index 300104900192d396..1531593b50d02150 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c
@@ -266,8 +266,21 @@ static void test_syscall_fallthrough_to(unsigned long ip)
printf("[OK]\tWe survived\n");
}
+/* See the comment in do_syscall(). */
+static void test_syscall_rcx_r11_consistent(void)
+{
+ do_syscall(__NR_getpid, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
+ do_syscall(__NR_gettid, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
+ do_syscall(__NR_getppid, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
+}
+
int main()
{
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < 32; i++)
+ test_syscall_rcx_r11_consistent();
+
/*
* When the kernel returns from a slow-path syscall, it will
* detect whether SYSRET is appropriate. If it incorrectly
@@ -275,7 +288,7 @@ int main()
* it'll crash on Intel CPUs.
*/
sethandler(SIGUSR1, sigusr1, 0);
- for (int i = 47; i < 64; i++)
+ for (i = 47; i < 64; i++)
test_sigreturn_to(1UL<<i);
clearhandler(SIGUSR1);
@@ -286,7 +299,7 @@ int main()
test_syscall_fallthrough_to((1UL << 47) - 2*PAGE_SIZE);
/* These are the interesting cases. */
- for (int i = 47; i < 64; i++) {
+ for (i = 47; i < 64; i++) {
test_syscall_fallthrough_to((1UL<<i) - PAGE_SIZE);
test_syscall_fallthrough_to(1UL<<i);
}
--
Ammar Faizi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists