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: <a1c76e622abff15550ada036dba79dd06f564198.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 15:31:31 +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 17:26 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I think it will crash, there's explanation in the comment in
> > tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c test
> 
> OK, thanks...
> 
> But test_shadow_stack.c doesn't do ARCH_PRCTL(ARCH_SHSTK_DISABLE) if
> all the tests succeed ? Confused but nevermind.

The last test disables shadow stack as part of the test. So if it succeeds it
doesn't need to disable the shadow stack to prevent underflow.