From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> To: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com> Cc: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>Peter Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 6/9] x86/cet/ibt: Add arch_prctl functions for IBT Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 08:37:16 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <3350f7b42b32f3f7a1963a9c9c526210c24f7b05.camel@intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20181004132811.GJ32759@asgard.redhat.com> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 15:28 +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 08:05:50AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > Update ARCH_CET_STATUS and ARCH_CET_DISABLE to include Indirect > > Branch Tracking features. > > > > Introduce: > > > > arch_prctl(ARCH_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP, unsigned long *addr) > > Enable the Indirect Branch Tracking legacy code bitmap. > > > > The parameter 'addr' is a pointer to a user buffer. > > On returning to the caller, the kernel fills the following: > > > > *addr = IBT bitmap base address > > *(addr + 1) = IBT bitmap size > > Again, some structure with a size field would be better from > UAPI/extensibility standpoint. > > One additional point: "size" in the structure from kernel should have > structure size expected by kernel, and at least providing there "0" from > user space shouldn't lead to failure (in fact, it is possible to provide > structure size back to userspace even if buffer is too small, along > with error). This has been in GLIBC v2.28. We cannot change it anymore. > > > > > Signed-off-by: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> > > --- > > arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h | 1 + > > arch/x86/kernel/cet_prctl.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > index 3aec1088e01d..31d2465f9caf 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > @@ -18,5 +18,6 @@ > > #define ARCH_CET_DISABLE 0x3002 > > #define ARCH_CET_LOCK 0x3003 > > #define ARCH_CET_ALLOC_SHSTK 0x3004 > > +#define ARCH_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP 0x3005 > > It would probably be nice to have mention of an architecture in these > definitions ("ARCH_X86_CET_"...), but it's likely too late. We can still change macro names. I will work on that. > > > > > #endif /* _ASM_X86_PRCTL_H */ > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cet_prctl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cet_prctl.c > > index c4b7c19f5040..df47b5ebc3f4 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cet_prctl.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cet_prctl.c > > @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ static int handle_get_status(unsigned long arg2) > > > > if (current->thread.cet.shstk_enabled) > > features |= GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_SHSTK; > > + if (current->thread.cet.ibt_enabled) > > + features |= GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_IBT; > > > > shstk_base = current->thread.cet.shstk_base; > > shstk_size = current->thread.cet.shstk_size; > > @@ -49,9 +51,35 @@ static int handle_alloc_shstk(unsigned long arg2) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static int handle_bitmap(unsigned long arg2) > > +{ > > + unsigned long addr, size; > > + > > + if (current->thread.cet.ibt_enabled) { > > + int err; > > + > > + err = cet_setup_ibt_bitmap(); > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + > > + addr = current->thread.cet.ibt_bitmap_addr; > > + size = current->thread.cet.ibt_bitmap_size; > > + } else { > > + addr = 0; > > + size = 0; > > + } > > + > > + if (put_user(addr, (unsigned long __user *)arg2) || > > + put_user(size, (unsigned long __user *)arg2 + 1)) > > + return -EFAULT; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > int prctl_cet(int option, unsigned long arg2) > > { > > - if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK)) > > + if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) && > > + !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_IBT)) > > This check is repeated many times, it is probably worth defining > something like cpu_x86_cet_enabled() or something like that. > Besides, early introduction of the macro would allow avoiding all these > changes over the code in IBT patches, only macro definition has > to be changed that way. Yes, that makes things easier. > > > @@ -73,6 +103,12 @@ int prctl_cet(int option, unsigned long arg2) > > case ARCH_CET_ALLOC_SHSTK: > > return handle_alloc_shstk(arg2); > > > > + /* > > + * Allocate legacy bitmap and return address & size to user. > > + */ > > + case ARCH_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP: > > + return handle_bitmap(arg2); > > + > > default: > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c > > index ac0ea9c7e89f..aea15a9b6a3e 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c > > @@ -797,6 +797,7 @@ long do_arch_prctl_common(struct task_struct *task, int > > option, > > case ARCH_CET_DISABLE: > > case ARCH_CET_LOCK: > > case ARCH_CET_ALLOC_SHSTK: > > + case ARCH_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP: > > return prctl_cet(option, cpuid_enabled); > > } > > I wonder, whether this duplication is really needed for CET-related > arch_prctl commands, why not just call them from do_arch_prctl_common? I will fix it. Yu-cheng
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> To: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com> Cc: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>, Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 6/9] x86/cet/ibt: Add arch_prctl functions for IBT Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 08:37:16 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <3350f7b42b32f3f7a1963a9c9c526210c24f7b05.camel@intel.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20181004153716.1ySvnpqSekN-8BnqUYMbRoJJ--Qh6DqX3dLC8tBRaH0@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20181004132811.GJ32759@asgard.redhat.com> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 15:28 +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 08:05:50AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > Update ARCH_CET_STATUS and ARCH_CET_DISABLE to include Indirect > > Branch Tracking features. > > > > Introduce: > > > > arch_prctl(ARCH_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP, unsigned long *addr) > > Enable the Indirect Branch Tracking legacy code bitmap. > > > > The parameter 'addr' is a pointer to a user buffer. > > On returning to the caller, the kernel fills the following: > > > > *addr = IBT bitmap base address > > *(addr + 1) = IBT bitmap size > > Again, some structure with a size field would be better from > UAPI/extensibility standpoint. > > One additional point: "size" in the structure from kernel should have > structure size expected by kernel, and at least providing there "0" from > user space shouldn't lead to failure (in fact, it is possible to provide > structure size back to userspace even if buffer is too small, along > with error). This has been in GLIBC v2.28. We cannot change it anymore. > > > > > Signed-off-by: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> > > --- > > arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h | 1 + > > arch/x86/kernel/cet_prctl.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > index 3aec1088e01d..31d2465f9caf 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > @@ -18,5 +18,6 @@ > > #define ARCH_CET_DISABLE 0x3002 > > #define ARCH_CET_LOCK 0x3003 > > #define ARCH_CET_ALLOC_SHSTK 0x3004 > > +#define ARCH_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP 0x3005 > > It would probably be nice to have mention of an architecture in these > definitions ("ARCH_X86_CET_"...), but it's likely too late. We can still change macro names. I will work on that. > > > > > #endif /* _ASM_X86_PRCTL_H */ > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cet_prctl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cet_prctl.c > > index c4b7c19f5040..df47b5ebc3f4 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cet_prctl.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cet_prctl.c > > @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ static int handle_get_status(unsigned long arg2) > > > > if (current->thread.cet.shstk_enabled) > > features |= GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_SHSTK; > > + if (current->thread.cet.ibt_enabled) > > + features |= GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_IBT; > > > > shstk_base = current->thread.cet.shstk_base; > > shstk_size = current->thread.cet.shstk_size; > > @@ -49,9 +51,35 @@ static int handle_alloc_shstk(unsigned long arg2) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static int handle_bitmap(unsigned long arg2) > > +{ > > + unsigned long addr, size; > > + > > + if (current->thread.cet.ibt_enabled) { > > + int err; > > + > > + err = cet_setup_ibt_bitmap(); > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + > > + addr = current->thread.cet.ibt_bitmap_addr; > > + size = current->thread.cet.ibt_bitmap_size; > > + } else { > > + addr = 0; > > + size = 0; > > + } > > + > > + if (put_user(addr, (unsigned long __user *)arg2) || > > + put_user(size, (unsigned long __user *)arg2 + 1)) > > + return -EFAULT; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > int prctl_cet(int option, unsigned long arg2) > > { > > - if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK)) > > + if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) && > > + !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_IBT)) > > This check is repeated many times, it is probably worth defining > something like cpu_x86_cet_enabled() or something like that. > Besides, early introduction of the macro would allow avoiding all these > changes over the code in IBT patches, only macro definition has > to be changed that way. Yes, that makes things easier. > > > @@ -73,6 +103,12 @@ int prctl_cet(int option, unsigned long arg2) > > case ARCH_CET_ALLOC_SHSTK: > > return handle_alloc_shstk(arg2); > > > > + /* > > + * Allocate legacy bitmap and return address & size to user. > > + */ > > + case ARCH_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP: > > + return handle_bitmap(arg2); > > + > > default: > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c > > index ac0ea9c7e89f..aea15a9b6a3e 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c > > @@ -797,6 +797,7 @@ long do_arch_prctl_common(struct task_struct *task, int > > option, > > case ARCH_CET_DISABLE: > > case ARCH_CET_LOCK: > > case ARCH_CET_ALLOC_SHSTK: > > + case ARCH_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP: > > return prctl_cet(option, cpuid_enabled); > > } > > I wonder, whether this duplication is really needed for CET-related > arch_prctl commands, why not just call them from do_arch_prctl_common? I will fix it. Yu-cheng
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-04 15:37 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-09-21 15:05 [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] Control Flow Enforcement: Branch Tracking, PTRACE Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] x86/cet/ibt: Add Kconfig option for user-mode Indirect Branch Tracking Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/9] x86/cet/ibt: User-mode indirect branch tracking support Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-03 18:58 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov 2018-10-03 18:58 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov 2018-09-21 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/9] x86/cet/ibt: Add IBT legacy code bitmap allocation function Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-03 19:57 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov 2018-10-03 19:57 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov 2018-10-05 16:13 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-05 16:13 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-05 16:28 ` Andy Lutomirski 2018-10-05 16:28 ` Andy Lutomirski 2018-10-05 16:58 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-05 16:58 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-05 17:07 ` Andy Lutomirski 2018-10-05 17:07 ` Andy Lutomirski 2018-10-05 17:26 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov 2018-10-05 17:26 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov 2018-10-10 15:56 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-10 15:56 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-04 16:11 ` Andy Lutomirski 2018-10-04 16:11 ` Andy Lutomirski 2018-09-21 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 4/9] mm/mmap: Add IBT bitmap size to address space limit check Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-03 20:21 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov 2018-10-03 20:21 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov 2018-09-21 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 5/9] x86/cet/ibt: ELF header parsing for IBT Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 6/9] x86/cet/ibt: Add arch_prctl functions " Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-04 13:28 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov 2018-10-04 13:28 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov 2018-10-04 15:37 ` Yu-cheng Yu [this message] 2018-10-04 15:37 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-04 16:07 ` Florian Weimer 2018-10-04 16:07 ` Florian Weimer 2018-10-04 16:12 ` Andy Lutomirski 2018-10-04 16:12 ` Andy Lutomirski 2018-10-04 16:25 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-04 16:25 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-10-04 16:08 ` Andy Lutomirski 2018-10-04 16:08 ` Andy Lutomirski 2018-09-21 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 7/9] x86/cet/ibt: Add ENDBR to op-code-map Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 8/9] x86: Insert endbr32/endbr64 to vDSO Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 9/9] x86/cet: Add PTRACE interface for CET Yu-cheng Yu 2018-09-21 15:05 ` Yu-cheng Yu
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=3350f7b42b32f3f7a1963a9c9c526210c24f7b05.camel@intel.com \ --to=yu-cheng.yu@intel.com \ --cc=arnd@arndb.de \ --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \ --cc=corbet@lwn.net \ --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \ --cc=esyr@redhat.com \ --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \ --cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \ --cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \ --cc=hpa@zytor.com \ --cc=jannh@google.com \ --cc=keescook@chromium.org \ --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=luto@amacapital.net \ --cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \ --cc=oleg@redhat.com \ --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=x86@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).