From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86CFDC43219 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41CA20651 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726801AbfDYQLT (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Apr 2019 12:11:19 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:47530 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725900AbfDYQLS (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Apr 2019 12:11:18 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B3C980D; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e103592.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 976F43F557; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 17:11:11 +0100 From: Dave Martin To: Yu-cheng Yu Cc: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , 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 , Andy Lutomirski , Balbir Singh , Cyrill Gorcunov , Dave Hansen , Eugene Syromiatnikov , Florian Weimer , "H.J. Lu" , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Kees Cook , Mike Kravetz , Nadav Amit , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Machek , Peter Zijlstra , Randy Dunlap , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Vedvyas Shanbhogue Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 22/26] x86/cet/shstk: ELF header parsing of Shadow Stack Message-ID: <20190425161110.GH3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20181119214809.6086-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20181119214809.6086-23-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20190425110211.GZ3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <20190425153547.GG3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190425153547.GG3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 04:35:48PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 08:14:52AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 12:02 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 01:48:05PM -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > > > Look in .note.gnu.property of an ELF file and check if Shadow Stack needs > > > > to be enabled for the task. > > > > > > What's the status of this series? I don't see anything in linux-next > > > yet. > > > > > > For describing ELF features, Arm has recently adopted > > > NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, with properties closely modelled on > > > GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_AND etc. [1] > > > > > > So, arm64 will be need something like this patch for supporting new > > > features (such as the Branch Target Identification feature of ARMv8.5-A > > > [2]). > > > > > > If this series isn't likely to merge soon, can we split this patch into > > > generic and x86-specific parts and handle them separately? > > > > > > It would be good to see the generic ELF note parsing move to common > > > code -- I'll take a look and comment in more detail. > > > > Yes, I will work on that. > > Thanks. I may try to hack something in the meantime based on your > patch. > > One other question: according to the draft spec at > https://github.com/hjl-tools/linux-abi/wiki/Linux-Extensions-to-gABI, it > looks like the .note.gnu.property section is supposed to be marked with > SHF_ALLOC in object files. > > I think that means that the linker will map it with a PT_LOAD entry in > the program header table in addition to the PT_NOTE that describes the > location of the note. I need to check what the toolchain actually > does. > > If so, can we simply rely on the notes being already mapped, rather than > needing to do additional I/O on the ELF file to fetch the notes? [...] BTW, it looks like this holds true for AArch64 (see below). Providing this also works on other arches, I think we can just pick PT_GNU_PROPERTY out of the program headers and rely on the corresponding note being already mapped by the existing binfmt_elf code. Cheers ---Dave --8<-- $ echo 'void f(void) { }' | \ aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc -v -nostdlib -Wl,-ef \ -mbranch-protection=standard -o /tmp/x -x c - && \ aarch64-linux-gnu-readelf -nl /tmp/x [...] gcc version 9.0.1 20190425 (experimental) (GCC) [...] GNU assembler version 2.32.51 (aarch64-linux-gnu) using BFD version (GNU Binutils) 2.32.51.20190425 [...] Elf file type is EXEC (Executable file) Entry point 0x400178 There are 5 program headers, starting at offset 64 Program Headers: Type Offset VirtAddr PhysAddr FileSiz MemSiz Flags Align LOAD 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000400000 0x0000000000400000 0x00000000000001c0 0x00000000000001c0 R E 0x10000 NOTE 0x0000000000000158 0x0000000000400158 0x0000000000400158 0x0000000000000020 0x0000000000000020 R 0x8 GNU_PROPERTY 0x0000000000000158 0x0000000000400158 0x0000000000400158 0x0000000000000020 0x0000000000000020 R 0x8 GNU_EH_FRAME 0x0000000000000184 0x0000000000400184 0x0000000000400184 0x0000000000000014 0x0000000000000014 R 0x4 GNU_STACK 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 RW 0x10 Section to Segment mapping: Segment Sections... 00 .note.gnu.property .text .eh_frame_hdr .eh_frame 01 .note.gnu.property 02 .note.gnu.property 03 .eh_frame_hdr 04 Displaying notes found in: .note.gnu.property Owner Data size Description GNU 0x00000010 NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0 Properties: AArch64 feature: BTI, PAC