[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22bbdd904da3673797fe8593cf47f7cd8ff54ea2.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 23:32:51 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.com>
CC: "dietmar.eggemann@....com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Szabolcs.Nagy@....com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>,
"fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"vschneid@...hat.com" <vschneid@...hat.com>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"bristot@...hat.com" <bristot@...hat.com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"bsegall@...gle.com" <bsegall@...gle.com>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 2/5] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
On Thu, 2023-10-26 at 13:40 -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
>
> FWIW, from arch specific perspective, RISC-V shadow stack extension
> has
> `ssamoswap` to perform this token exchange. But I understand x86 has
> this
> limitation (not sure about arm GCS).
>
> From security perspective:--
> Someone having ability to execute clone3 with control on input,
> probably
> already achieved some level of control flow bending because they need
> to
> corrupt memory and then carefully control registers input to clone3.
> Although if it is purely a data oriented gadget, I think it is
> possible.
struct clone_args should be data somewhere, at least temporarily.
>
> Since this RFC is mostly concerned about `size` of shadow stack. I
> think
> we should limit it to size only.
Seems reasonable to me. It still leaves open the option of adding an
shadow stack address field later AFAICT.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists