linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 16/33] riscv/shstk: If needed allocate a new shadow stack on clone

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <93a3315b3acd8a0585fe266bdfdbd44e54aabaee.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 23:31:16 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.com>
CC: "kito.cheng@...ive.com" <kito.cheng@...ive.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de"
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, "lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com"
	<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "charlie@...osinc.com" <charlie@...osinc.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"samitolvanen@...gle.com" <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "corbet@....net"
	<corbet@....net>, "kees@...nel.org" <kees@...nel.org>,
	"alistair.francis@....com" <alistair.francis@....com>, "broonie@...nel.org"
	<broonie@...nel.org>, "andybnac@...il.com" <andybnac@...il.com>,
	"krzk+dt@...nel.org" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "palmer@...belt.com"
	<palmer@...belt.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "bp@...en8.de"
	<bp@...en8.de>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, "aou@...s.berkeley.edu"
	<aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
	"jim.shu@...ive.com" <jim.shu@...ive.com>, "vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>, "Liam.Howlett@...cle.com"
	<Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"alexghiti@...osinc.com" <alexghiti@...osinc.com>, "ebiederm@...ssion.com"
	<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, "atishp@...osinc.com" <atishp@...osinc.com>,
	"richard.henderson@...aro.org" <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
	"cleger@...osinc.com" <cleger@...osinc.com>, "brauner@...nel.org"
	<brauner@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "mingo@...hat.com"
	<mingo@...hat.com>, "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
	"paul.walmsley@...ive.com" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, "linux-mm@...ck.org"
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, "evan@...osinc.com" <evan@...osinc.com>,
	"conor@...nel.org" <conor@...nel.org>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 16/33] riscv/shstk: If needed allocate a new shadow
 stack on clone

On Tue, 2024-10-08 at 16:17 -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> Yeah you're right. Honestly, I've been shameless in adapting most of the flows
> from x86 `shstk.c` for risc-v. So thank you for that.

All good, glad we ended up with similar behavior.

> 
> Now that we've `ARCH_HAS_USER_SHADOW_STACK` part of multiple patch series (riscv
> shadowstack, clone3 and I think arm64 gcs series as well). It's probably the
> appropriate time to find common grounds.

There have been bugs in the similar bits of code. So will be nice to not have to
fix them in each arch too.

> 
> This is what I suggest
> 
> - move most of the common/arch agnostic shadow stack stuff in kernel/shstk.c
>    This gets part of compile if `ARCH_HAS_USER_SHADOW_STACK` is enabled/selected.

Yea, I guess we have commonality for (in x86 naming):
 - map_shadow_stack()
 - shstk_free()
 - shstk_alloc_thread_stack()
 - shstk_setup()

The signal part starts to diverge. Then I guess x86 has a different prctl
interface.

> 
> - allow arch specific branch out guard checks for "if cpu supports", "is shadow stack
>    enabled on the task_struct" (I expect each arch layout of task_struct will be
>    different, no point finding common ground there), etc.

Sure.

> 
> I think it's worth a try. 
> If you already don't have patches, I'll spend some time to see what it takes to
> converge in my next version. If I end up into some roadblock, will use this thread
> for further discussion.

Sounds good. I have not looked at it too much.