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;
Message-ID: <1529622448.30393.22.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] x86/cet: Add arch_prctl functions for shadow stack
From:   Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        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, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:07:28 -0700
In-Reply-To: <13E3C29A-3295-4A7F-90EC-A84CF34F3E1A@amacapital.net>
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>
         <CALCETrXO8R+RQPhJFk4oiA4PF77OgSS2Yro_POXQj1zvdLo61A@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAMe9rOpLxPussn7gKvn0GgbOB4f5W+DKOGipe_8NMam+Afd+RA@mail.gmail.com>
         <CALCETrWmGRkQvsUgRaj+j0CP4beKys+TT5aDR5+18nuphwr+Cw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAMe9rOpzcCdje=bUVs+C1WrY6GuwA-8AUFVLOG325LGz7KHJxw@mail.gmail.com>
         <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806122046520.1592@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
         <CAMe9rOrGjJf0aMnUjAP38MqvOiW3=iXGQjcUT3O=f9pE85hXaw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CALCETrVsh5t-V1Sm88LsZE_+DS0GE_bMWbcoX3SjD6GnrB08Pw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAGXu5jK0gospOXRpN6zYiQPXOZeE=YpVAz2qu4Zc3-32v85+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <569B4719-6283-4575-A16E-D0A78D280F4E@amacapital.net>
         <CAGXu5jJNgu4bW_Zthqjfpe9gLxK0zxG8QFEqqK+pJNebz6tUaw@mail.gmail.com>
         <1529427588.23068.7.camel@intel.com>
         <CAGXu5jJ4ivrvi-kG0iY=4C0mQQXBDXwPdfY36Dk+JqOpX19n0w@mail.gmail.com>
         <0AF8B71E-B6CC-42DE-B95C-93896196C3D7@amacapital.net>
         <CAGXu5jLEMy_T_5OtXLT+pUCt=Nk53nBbuRvrUgJBhq-4RZ=yCA@mail.gmail.com>
         <446EB18D-EF06-4A04-AF62-E72C68D96A84@amacapital.net>
         <1529447937.27370.33.camel@intel.com>
         <13E3C29A-3295-4A7F-90EC-A84CF34F3E1A@amacapital.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 17:50 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:38 PM, Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 13:47 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Jun 19, 2018, at 1:12 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amaca
> > > > > pita
> > > > > l.net> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Jun 19, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.
> > > > > > org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Does it provide anything beyond what PR_DUMPABLE does?
> > > > > What do you mean?
> > > > I was just going by the name of it. I wasn't sure what "ptrace
> > > > CET
> > > > lock" meant, so I was trying to understand if it was another
> > > > "you
> > > > can't ptrace me" toggle, and if so, wouldn't it be redundant
> > > > with
> > > > PR_SET_DUMPABLE = 0, etc.
> > > > 
> > > No, other way around. The valid CET states are on/unlocked,
> > > off/unlocked, on/locked, off/locked. arch_prctl can freely the
> > > state
> > > unless locked. ptrace can change it no matter what.  The lock is
> > > to
> > > prevent the existence of a gadget to disable CET (unless the
> > > gadget
> > > involves ptrace, but I don’t think that’s a real concern).
> > We have the arch_prctl now and only need to add ptrace lock/unlock.
> > 
> > Back to the dlopen() "relaxed" mode. Would the following work?
> > 
> > If the lib being loaded does not use setjmp/getcontext families
> > (the
> > loader knows?), then the loader leaves shstk on.  
> Will that actually work?  Are there libs that do something like
> longjmp without actually using the glibc longjmp routine?  What about
> compilers that statically match a throw to a catch and try to return
> through several frames at once?
> 

The compiler throw/catch is already handled similarly to how longjmp is
handled.

To summarize the dlopen() situation,

----
(1) We don't want to fall back like the following.  One reason is
turning off SHSTK for threads is tricky.

if ((dlopen() a legacy library) && (cet_policy==relaxed)) {
	/*
	 * We don't care if the library will actually fault;
	 * just turn off CET protection now.
	 */
	Turn off CET;
}

(2) We cannot predict what version of a library will be dlopen'ed, and
cannot turn off CET reliably from the beginning of an application.
----

Can we mandate a signal handler (to turn off CET) when ((dlopen is used
) && (cet_policy==relaxed))?

> > 
> > Otherwise, if the
> > system-wide setting is "relaxed", the loader turns off shstk and
> > issues
> > a warning.  In addition, if (dlopen == relaxed), then cet is not
> > locked
> > in any time.
> > 
> > The system-wide setting (somewhere in /etc?) can be:
> > 
> >    dlopen=force|relaxed /* controls dlopen of non-cet libs */
> >    exec=force|relaxed /* controls exec of non-cet apps */
> > 
> > 
> Why do we need a whole new mechanism here?  Can’t all this use
> regular glibc tunables?

Ok, got it.

Yu-cheng