From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from second.openwall.net (second.openwall.net [193.110.157.125]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 37147255B6 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:57:57 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 8097 invoked by uid 550); 21 Feb 2024 14:54:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 8077 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2024 14:54:35 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 09:58:01 -0500 From: "dalias@libc.org" To: Mark Brown Cc: "Edgecombe, Rick P" , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "suzuki.poulose@arm.com" , "Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com" , "musl@lists.openwall.com" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" , "kvmarm@lists.linux.dev" , "corbet@lwn.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "catalin.marinas@arm.com" , "oliver.upton@linux.dev" , "palmer@dabbelt.com" , "debug@rivosinc.com" , "aou@eecs.berkeley.edu" , "shuah@kernel.org" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "maz@kernel.org" , "oleg@redhat.com" , "fweimer@redhat.com" , "keescook@chromium.org" , "james.morse@arm.com" , "ebiederm@xmission.com" , "will@kernel.org" , "brauner@kernel.org" , "hjl.tools@gmail.com" , "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" , "paul.walmsley@sifive.com" , "ardb@kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "thiago.bauermann@linaro.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "sorear@fastmail.com" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" Message-ID: <20240221145800.GR4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20240203-arm64-gcs-v8-0-c9fec77673ef@kernel.org> <22a53b78-10d7-4a5a-a01e-b2f3a8c22e94@app.fastmail.com> <4c7bdf8fde9cc45174f10b9221fa58ffb450b755.camel@intel.com> <20240220185714.GO4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <9fc9c45ff6e14df80ad023e66ff7a978bd4ec91c.camel@intel.com> <20240220235415.GP4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20240221012736.GQ4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH v8 00/38] arm64/gcs: Provide support for GCS in userspace On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 01:53:10PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 08:27:37PM -0500, dalias@libc.org wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:35:48AM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote: > > > > (INCSSP, RSTORSSP, etc). These are a collection of instructions that > > > allow limited control of the SSP. When shadow stack gets disabled, > > > these suddenly turn into #UD generating instructions. So any other > > > threads executing those instructions when shadow stack got disabled > > > would be in for a nasty surprise. > > > This is the kernel's problem if that's happening. It should be > > trapping these and returning immediately like a NOP if shadow stack > > has been disabled, not generating SIGILL. > > I'm not sure that's going to work out well, all it takes is some code > that's looking at the shadow stack and expecting something to happen as > a result of the instructions it's executing and we run into trouble. A > lot of things won't notice and will just happily carry on but I expect > there are going to be things that care. We also end up with an > additional state for threads that have had shadow stacks transparently > disabled, that's managable but still. I said NOP but there's no reason it strictly needs to be a NOP. It could instead do something reasonable to convey the state of racing with shadow stack being disabled. > > > > > The place where it's really needed to be able to allocate the shadow > > > > stack synchronously under userspace control, in order to harden > > > > normal > > > > applications that aren't doing funny things, is in pthread_create > > > > without a caller-provided stack. > > > > Yea most apps don't do anything too tricky. Mostly shadow stack "just > > > works". But it's no excuse to just crash for the others. > > > One thing to note here is that, to enable this, we're going to need > > some way to detect "new enough kernel that shadow stack semantics are > > all right". If there are kernels that have shadow stack support but > > with problems that make it unsafe to use (this sounds like the case), > > we can't turn it on without a way to avoid trying to use it on those. > > If we have this automatic conversion of pages to shadow stack then we > should have an API for enabling it, userspace should be able to use the > presence of that API to determine if the feature is there. Yes, or if a new prctl is needed to make disabling safe (see above) that could probably be used. Rich