Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-92330-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5fLgg0yGbuHnMbMB103Zssg4KSfXUR3kvhr0kuqTSah=6kWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240305112017.125061-1-kernel@valentinobst.de> <CAH5fLgis7Usg_cfWM5rBKjRKsB4857PkyuCMrCU6PmEqTOMFiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5fLgj=iuWNWy9jGvaD0SCcZg6GSj9XBgB0vZwL8EokobUPMg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH5fLgj=iuWNWy9jGvaD0SCcZg6GSj9XBgB0vZwL8EokobUPMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 13:08:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH5fLggdR1UPNUa4R4CeJr+0cVRRr7cvyEQ3XhYaEqVD1cRtYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: add flags for shadow call stack sanitizer
To: Valentin Obst <kernel@valentinobst.de>
Cc: Jamie.Cunliffe@arm.com, a.hindborg@samsung.com, alex.gaynor@gmail.com, 
	ardb@kernel.org, benno.lossin@proton.me, bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com, 
	boqun.feng@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, 
	gary@garyguo.net, keescook@chromium.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 
	linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	mark.rutland@arm.com, masahiroy@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, 
	ndesaulniers@google.com, nicolas@fjasle.eu, ojeda@kernel.org, 
	rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, samitolvanen@google.com, wedsonaf@gmail.com, 
	will@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:31=E2=80=AFPM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> w=
rote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:28=E2=80=AFPM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>=
 wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:20=E2=80=AFPM Valentin Obst <kernel@valentino=
bst.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >>> It's not 100% clear to me whether this patch is enough for full=
 SCS
> > > > >>> support in Rust. If there is some issue where this makes things=
 compile
> > > > >>> and work without actually applying SCS to the Rust code, please=
 let me
> > > > >>> know. Is there some way to verify that it is actually working?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Perhaps you could write a Rust version of the CFI_BACKWARD test =
in LKDTM?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Alternatively, the simplest way to verify this is to look at the
> > > > >> disassembly and verify that shadow stack instructions are emitte=
d to
> > > > >> Rust functions too. In case of dynamic SCS, you might need to du=
mp
> > > > >> function memory in a debugger to verify that PAC instructions we=
re
> > > > >> patched correctly. If they're not, the code will just quietly co=
ntinue
> > > > >> working without using shadow stacks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Was just in the process of doing that:
> > > > >
> > > > > - `paciasp`/`autiasp` pairs are emitted for functions in Rust mod=
ules.
> > > > > - Rust modules have no `.init.eh_frame` section, which implies th=
at
> > > > >   `module_finalize` is _not_ rewriting the pac insns when SCS is =
dynamic.
> > > > >   - Confirmed that behavior in the debugger (C modules and the C =
part of the
> > > > >     kernel are correctly rewritten, Rust modules execute with
> > > > >     `paciasp`/`autiasp` still in place).
> > > > > - Kernel boots just fine with Rust kunit tests, tested with and w=
ithout dynamic
> > > > >   SCS, i.e., on a CPU that supports PAC/BTI and one that does not=
.
> > > > > - Rust sample modules load and unload without problems as well.
> > > > > - `x18` is indeed not used in the codegen.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess we might be able to get this working when we tweak the bu=
ild system
> > > > > to emit the missing section for Rust modules.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose the -Cforce-unwind-tables=3Dy flag will most likely do it=
.
> > >
> > > Yes, enabling this means that `.eh_frame` sections, which are convert=
ed to
> > > `.init.eh_frame` sections for loadable modules, are generated for Rus=
t
> > > objects.
> > >
> > > Tested booting, kunit tests, sample modules (as builtin and loadable)=
 for
> > > both, dynamic SCS active and inactive. Backtraces on Rust panicks als=
o look
> > > normal.
> > >
> > > Confirmed that in the debugger that builtin and external modules are
> > > rewritten (or not rewritten if no dynamic SCS). Did not check that th=
e
> > > `eh_frame` sections are exhaustive, i.e., cover all `paciasp`/`autias=
p`
> > > pairs, only verified a few functions (in init text and normal text).
> >
> > Thank you for checking that!
> >
> > > > There's also an use_sync_unwind option, but it defaults to no, so i=
t
> > > > doesn't seem like we need to set it.
> > >
> > > Are those defaults stable or will we notice if they change? If not it=
 might
> > > make sense to set it explicitly anyways to avoid surprises in the fut=
ure.
> >
> > The flag itself is unstable, so I imagine that nothing is promised abou=
t it.
> >
> > I tried it, but I wasn't actually able to find a way to set it. I can
> > see the flag in the rustc source code, but passing -Zuse-sync-unwind=3D=
n
> > results in "error: unknown unstable option: `use-sync-unwind`". Not
> > sure what the issue is.
>
> Oh, I understand now. It's really recent and not in 1.73.0, which is
> what I'm using in the Android build.

Sent v2 with what we have learned:
https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20240305-shadow-call-stack-v2-1-c7b4=
a3f4d616@google.com/

Thanks!