Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180607143807.3611-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20180607143807.3611-7-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <CALCETrU6axo158CiSCRRkC4GC5hib9hypC98t7LLjA3gDaacsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1528403417.5265.35.camel@2b52.sc.intel.com> <CALCETrXz3WWgZwUXJsDTWvmqKUArQFuMH1xJdSLVKFpTysNWxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMe9rOr49V8rqRa_KVsw61PWd+crkQvPDgPKtvowazjmsfgWWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806121155450.2157@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <CAMe9rOoCiXQ4iVD3j_AHGrvEXtoaVVZVs7H7fCuqNEuuR5j+2Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOoCiXQ4iVD3j_AHGrvEXtoaVVZVs7H7fCuqNEuuR5j+2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:01:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrXO8R+RQPhJFk4oiA4PF77OgSS2Yro_POXQj1zvdLo61A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] x86/cet: Add arch_prctl functions for shadow stack
To:     "H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        mike.kravetz@oracle.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:43 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> > Why is the lockout necessary?  If user code enables CET and tries to
> >> > run code that doesn't support CET, it will crash.  I don't see why we
> >> > need special code in the kernel to prevent a user program from calling
> >> > arch_prctl() and crashing itself.  There are already plenty of ways to
> >> > do that :)
> >>
> >> On CET enabled machine, not all programs nor shared libraries are
> >> CET enabled.  But since ld.so is CET enabled, all programs start
> >> as CET enabled.  ld.so will disable CET if a program or any of its shared
> >> libraries aren't CET enabled.  ld.so will lock up CET once it is done CET
> >> checking so that CET can't no longer be disabled afterwards.
> >
> > That works for stuff which loads all libraries at start time, but what
> > happens if the program uses dlopen() later on? If CET is force locked and
> > the library is not CET enabled, it will fail.
>
> That is to prevent disabling CET by dlopening a legacy shared library.
>
> > I don't see the point of trying to support CET by magic. It adds complexity
> > and you'll never be able to handle all corner cases correctly. dlopen() is
> > not even a corner case.
>
> That is a price we pay for security.  To enable CET, especially shadow
> shack, the program and all of shared libraries it uses should be CET
> enabled.  Most of programs can be enabled with CET by compiling them
> with -fcf-protection.

If you charge too high a price for security, people may turn it off.
I think we're going to need a mode where a program says "I want to use
the CET, but turn it off if I dlopen an unsupported library".  There
are programs that load binary-only plugins.