linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv5 bpf-next 6/8] x86/shstk: Add return uprobe 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: <0fa9634e9ac0d30d513eefe6099f5d8d354d93c1.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 15:13:59 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "olsajiri@...il.com" <olsajiri@...il.com>, "oleg@...hat.com"
	<oleg@...hat.com>
CC: "songliubraving@...com" <songliubraving@...com>, "luto@...nel.org"
	<luto@...nel.org>, "mhiramat@...nel.org" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	"andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>, "debug@...osinc.com"
	<debug@...osinc.com>, "john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "rostedt@...dmis.org"
	<rostedt@...dmis.org>, "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "linux-man@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-man@...r.kernel.org>, "yhs@...com" <yhs@...com>,
	"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>, "peterz@...radead.org"
	<peterz@...radead.org>, "linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org"
	<x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 bpf-next 6/8] x86/shstk: Add return uprobe support

On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 13:35 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Let me repeat I know nothing about shadow stacks, only tried to
> read Documentation/arch/x86/shstk.rst few minutes ago ;)
> 
> On 05/13, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > 
> > 1) current uretprobe which are not working at the moment and we change
> >     the top value of shadow stack with shstk_push_frame
> > 2) optimized uretprobe which needs to push new frame on shadow stack
> >     with shstk_update_last_frame
> > 
> > I think we should do 1) and have current uretprobe working with shadow
> > stack, which is broken at the moment
> 
> Agreed,
> 
> > I'm ok with not using optimized uretprobe when shadow stack is detected
> > as enabled and we go with current uretprobe in that case
> 
> But how can we detect it? Again, suppose userspace does

the rdssp instruction returns the value of the shadow stack pointer. On non-
shadow stack it is a nop. So you could check if the SSP is non-zero to find if
shadow stack is enabled. This would catch most cases, but I guess there is the
possibility of it getting enabled in a signal that hit between checking and the
rest of operation. Is this uretprobe stuff signal safe in general?