Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 19:29:34 +0200
From:   Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>
To:     Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, 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@kernel.org>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        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>,
        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>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>, mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 26/26] x86/cet/shstk: Add arch_prctl functions for
 shadow stack
Message-ID: <20200522172934.GI12341@asgard.redhat.com>
References: <20200429220732.31602-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <20200429220732.31602-27-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <202005211528.A12B4AD@keescook>
 <c9c9314374c7db0bf9b6e39670855afe5b0d4014.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c9c9314374c7db0bf9b6e39670855afe5b0d4014.camel@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:17:43AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-05-21 at 15:42 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 03:07:32PM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> [...]
> > > +
> > > +int prctl_cet(int option, u64 arg2)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct cet_status *cet;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_INTEL_CET))
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > Using -EINVAL here means userspace can't tell the difference between an
> > old kernel and a kernel not built with CONFIG_X86_INTEL_CET. Perhaps
> > -ENOTSUPP?
> 
> Looked into this.  The kernel and GLIBC are not in sync.  So maybe we still use
> EINVAL here?
> 
> Yu-cheng
> 
> 
> 
> In kernel:
> ----------
> 
> #define EOPNOTSUPP	95
> #define ENOTSUPP 	524
> 
> In GLIBC:
> ---------
> 
> printf("ENOTSUP=%d\n", ENOTSUP);
> printf("EOPNOTSUPP=%d\n", EOPNOTSUPP);
> printf("%s=524\n", strerror(524));
>  
> ENOTSUP=95
> EOPNOTSUPP=95
> Unknown error 524=524

EOPNOTSUPP/ENOTSUP/ENOTSUPP is actually a mess, it's summarized recently
by Michael Kerrisk[1].  From the kernel's point of view, I think it
would be reasonable to return EOPNOTSUPP, and expect that the userspace
would use ENOTSUP to match against it.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/cb4c685b-6c5d-9c16-aade-0c95e57de4b9@gmail.com/