linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC RFT v2 5/5] kselftest/clone3: Test shadow stack support

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: <ZVfXTmVestrAwIkN@debug.ba.rivosinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:12:46 -0800
From:   Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
To:     "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc:     "dietmar.eggemann@....com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "Szabolcs.Nagy@....com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>,
        "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "vschneid@...hat.com" <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "bristot@...hat.com" <bristot@...hat.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "bsegall@...gle.com" <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "Pandey, Sunil K" <sunil.k.pandey@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RFT v2 5/5] kselftest/clone3: Test shadow stack
 support

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 11:11:58PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
>On Tue, 2023-11-14 at 20:05 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> +static void test_shadow_stack_supported(void)
>> +{
>> +        long shadow_stack;
>> +
>> +       shadow_stack = syscall(__NR_map_shadow_stack, 0,
>> getpagesize(), 0);
>
>Hmm, x86 fails this call if user shadow stack is not supported in the
>HW or the kernel, but doesn't care if it is enabled on the thread or
>not. If shadow stack is not enabled (or not yet enabled), shadow stacks
>are allowed to be mapped. Should it fail if shadow stack is not yet
>enabled?
>
>Since shadow stack is per thread, map_shadow_stack could still be
>called on another thread that has it enabled. Basically I don't think
>blocking it will reduce the possible states the kernel has to handle.
>
>The traditional way to check if shadow stack is enabled on x86 is the
>check for a non zero return from the _get_ssp() intrinsic:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.2.0/gcc/x86-control-flow-protection-intrinsics.html
>
>It seems like there will be a need for some generic method of checking
>if shadow stack is enabled. Maybe a more generic compiler
>intrinsic/builtin or glibc API (something unrelated to SSP)?

Exposing a new file under procfs would be useful?
Something like "/proc/sys/vm/user_shadow_stack_supported"

`map_shadow_stack` can return MAP_FAILED for other reasons.
I think `kselftests` are fine but I don't want people to pick up this
as test code and run with it in production :-)

So kernel providing a way to indicate whether it supports shadow stack
mappings in user mode via procfs would be useful and arch agnostic.

>
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "Shadow stack on system with shadow stack",
>> +               .flags = 0,
>> +               .size = 0,
>> +               .expected = 0,
>> +               .e2big_valid = true,
>> +               .test_mode = CLONE3_ARGS_SHADOW_STACK,
>> +               .filter = no_shadow_stack,
>> +       },
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "Shadow stack on system without shadow
>> stack",
>> +               .flags = 0,
>> +               .size = 0,
>> +               .expected = -EINVAL,
>> +               .e2big_valid = true,
>> +               .test_mode = CLONE3_ARGS_SHADOW_STACK,
>> +               .filter = have_shadow_stack,
>> +       },
>>  };
>>  
>I changed x86's map_shadow_stack to return an error when shadow stack
>was not enabled to make the detection logic in the test work. Also
>changed the clone3 Makefile to generate the shadow stack bit in the
>tests. When running the 'clone3' test with shadow stack it passed, but
>there is a failure in the non-shadow stack case:
>...
># Shadow stack not supported
>ok 20 # SKIP Shadow stack on system with shadow stack
># Running test 'Shadow stack on system without shadow stack'
># [1333] Trying clone3() with flags 0 (size 0)
># I am the parent (1333). My child's pid is 1342
># I am the child, my PID is 1342
># [1333] clone3() with flags says: 0 expected -22
># [1333] Result (0) is different than expected (-22)
>not ok 21 Shadow stack on system without shadow stack
># Totals: pass:19 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:1 error:0
>
>The other tests passed in both cases. I'm going to dig into the other
>parts now but can circle back if it's not obvious what's going on
>there.