diff mbox series

[v4,16/39] x86/mm: Check Shadow Stack page fault errors

Message ID 20221203003606.6838-17-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series Shadow stacks for userspace | expand

Commit Message

Edgecombe, Rick P Dec. 3, 2022, 12:35 a.m. UTC 
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>

The CPU performs "shadow stack accesses" when it expects to encounter
shadow stack mappings. These accesses can be implicit (via CALL/RET
instructions) or explicit (instructions like WRSS).

Shadow stacks accesses to shadow-stack mappings can see faults in normal,
valid operation just like regular accesses to regular mappings. Shadow
stacks need some of the same features like delayed allocation, swap and
copy-on-write. The kernel needs to use faults to implement those features.

The architecture has concepts of both shadow stack reads and shadow stack
writes. Any shadow stack access to non-shadow stack memory will generate
a fault with the shadow stack error code bit set.

This means that, unlike normal write protection, the fault handler needs
to create a type of memory that can be written to (with instructions that
generate shadow stack writes), even to fulfill a read access. So in the
case of COW memory, the COW needs to take place even with a shadow stack
read. Otherwise the page will be left (shadow stack) writable in
userspace. So to trigger the appropriate behavior, set FAULT_FLAG_WRITE
for shadow stack accesses, even if the access was a shadow stack read.

Shadow stack accesses can also result in errors, such as when a shadow
stack overflows, or if a shadow stack access occurs to a non-shadow-stack
mapping. Also, generate the errors for invalid shadow stack accesses.

Tested-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com>
Tested-by: John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Co-developed-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
---

v4:
 - Further improve comment talking about FAULT_FLAG_WRITE (Peterz)

v3:
 - Improve comment talking about using FAULT_FLAG_WRITE (Peterz)

v2:
 - Update commit log with verbiage/feedback from Dave Hansen
 - Clarify reasoning for FAULT_FLAG_WRITE for all shadow stack accesses
 - Update comments with some verbiage from Dave Hansen

Yu-cheng v30:
 - Update Subject line and add a verb

 arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h |  2 ++
 arch/x86/mm/fault.c            | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+)

Comments

Borislav Petkov Jan. 4, 2023, 2:32 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 04:35:43PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
> 
> The CPU performs "shadow stack accesses" when it expects to encounter
> shadow stack mappings. These accesses can be implicit (via CALL/RET
> instructions) or explicit (instructions like WRSS).
> 
> Shadow stacks accesses to shadow-stack mappings can see faults in normal,
> valid operation just like regular accesses to regular mappings. Shadow
> stacks need some of the same features like delayed allocation, swap and
> copy-on-write. The kernel needs to use faults to implement those features.
> 
> The architecture has concepts of both shadow stack reads and shadow stack
> writes. Any shadow stack access to non-shadow stack memory will generate
> a fault with the shadow stack error code bit set.

You lost me here: by "shadow stack access to non-shadow stack memory" you mean
the explicit one using WRU*SS?

> This means that, unlike normal write protection, the fault handler needs
> to create a type of memory that can be written to (with instructions that
> generate shadow stack writes), even to fulfill a read access. So in the
> case of COW memory, the COW needs to take place even with a shadow stack
> read.

I guess I'm missing an example here: are we talking here about a user process
getting its shadow stack pages allocated and them being COW first and on the
first shstk operation, it would generate that fault?

> @@ -1331,6 +1345,30 @@ void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,
>  
>  	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, address);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * When a page becomes COW it changes from a shadow stack permissioned

Unknown word [permissioned] in comment.

> +	 * page (Write=0,Dirty=1) to (Write=0,Dirty=0,CoW=1), which is simply
> +	 * read-only to the CPU. When shadow stack is enabled, a RET would
> +	 * normally pop the shadow stack by reading it with a "shadow stack
> +	 * read" access. However, in the COW case the shadow stack memory does
> +	 * not have shadow stack permissions, it is read-only. So it will
> +	 * generate a fault.
> +	 *
> +	 * For conventionally writable pages, a read can be serviced with a
> +	 * read only PTE, and COW would not have to happen. But for shadow
> +	 * stack, there isn't the concept of read-only shadow stack memory.
> +	 * If it is shadow stack permissioned, it can be modified via CALL and

Ditto.

> +	 * RET instructions. So COW needs to happen before any memory can be
> +	 * mapped with shadow stack permissions.
> +	 *
> +	 * Shadow stack accesses (read or write) need to be serviced with
> +	 * shadow stack permissioned memory, so in the case of a shadow stack

Is this some new formulation I haven't heard about yet?

"Permissioned <something>"?

> +	 * read access, treat it as a WRITE fault so both COW will happen and
> +	 * the write fault path will tickle maybe_mkwrite() and map the memory
> +	 * shadow stack.
> +	 */
> +	if (error_code & X86_PF_SHSTK)
> +		flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>  	if (error_code & X86_PF_WRITE)
>  		flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>  	if (error_code & X86_PF_INSTR)
> -- 
> 2.17.1
>
Edgecombe, Rick P Jan. 5, 2023, 1:29 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, 2023-01-04 at 15:32 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 04:35:43PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
> > 
> > The CPU performs "shadow stack accesses" when it expects to
> > encounter
> > shadow stack mappings. These accesses can be implicit (via CALL/RET
> > instructions) or explicit (instructions like WRSS).
> > 
> > Shadow stacks accesses to shadow-stack mappings can see faults in
> > normal,
> > valid operation just like regular accesses to regular mappings.
> > Shadow
> > stacks need some of the same features like delayed allocation, swap
> > and
> > copy-on-write. The kernel needs to use faults to implement those
> > features.
> > 
> > The architecture has concepts of both shadow stack reads and shadow
> > stack
> > writes. Any shadow stack access to non-shadow stack memory will
> > generate
> > a fault with the shadow stack error code bit set.
> 
> You lost me here: by "shadow stack access to non-shadow stack memory"
> you mean
> the explicit one using WRU*SS?

Shadow stack accesses can be WR*SS, shadow stack pushes/pops from
call/ret or incssp. Basically the instructions that intend to read or
write to a shadow stack.

> 
> > This means that, unlike normal write protection, the fault handler
> > needs
> > to create a type of memory that can be written to (with
> > instructions that
> > generate shadow stack writes), even to fulfill a read access. So in
> > the
> > case of COW memory, the COW needs to take place even with a shadow
> > stack
> > read.
> 
> I guess I'm missing an example here: are we talking here about a user
> process
> getting its shadow stack pages allocated and them being COW first and
> on the
> first shstk operation, it would generate that fault?

So if you have a shadow stack, then fork() so the shadow stack PTEs
become read-only. Then you RET and the shadow stack get's popped to
compare it to the normal stack value. In this case it only needs to
read the shadow stack, but it does this with a "shadow stack read",
which will fault if memory is not shadow stack. So the fault is a read
fault, but it needs to make the PTE shadow stack in order to resolve
it. So it needs to trigger COW, otherwise the shared page would be
changeable from userspace. Make sense? I guess I can add an example if
you think it would help.

> 
> > @@ -1331,6 +1345,30 @@ void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs
> > *regs,
> >  
> >  	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, address);
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * When a page becomes COW it changes from a shadow stack
> > permissioned
> 
> Unknown word [permissioned] in comment.

I can change it.

> 
> > +	 * page (Write=0,Dirty=1) to (Write=0,Dirty=0,CoW=1), which is
> > simply
> > +	 * read-only to the CPU. When shadow stack is enabled, a RET
> > would
> > +	 * normally pop the shadow stack by reading it with a "shadow
> > stack
> > +	 * read" access. However, in the COW case the shadow stack
> > memory does
> > +	 * not have shadow stack permissions, it is read-only. So it
> > will
> > +	 * generate a fault.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * For conventionally writable pages, a read can be serviced
> > with a
> > +	 * read only PTE, and COW would not have to happen. But for
> > shadow
> > +	 * stack, there isn't the concept of read-only shadow stack
> > memory.
> > +	 * If it is shadow stack permissioned, it can be modified via
> > CALL and
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> > +	 * RET instructions. So COW needs to happen before any memory
> > can be
> > +	 * mapped with shadow stack permissions.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * Shadow stack accesses (read or write) need to be serviced
> > with
> > +	 * shadow stack permissioned memory, so in the case of a shadow
> > stack
> 
> Is this some new formulation I haven't heard about yet?
> 
> "Permissioned <something>"?

It looks like it's not an official dictionary word, but I've seen it
from time to time:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/permissioned

> 
> > +	 * read access, treat it as a WRITE fault so both COW will
> > happen and
> > +	 * the write fault path will tickle maybe_mkwrite() and map the
> > memory
> > +	 * shadow stack.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (error_code & X86_PF_SHSTK)
> > +		flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
> >  	if (error_code & X86_PF_WRITE)
> >  		flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
> >  	if (error_code & X86_PF_INSTR)
> > -- 
> > 2.17.1
> > 
> 
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h
index 10b1de500ab1..afa524325e55 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ 
  *   bit 3 ==				1: use of reserved bit detected
  *   bit 4 ==				1: fault was an instruction fetch
  *   bit 5 ==				1: protection keys block access
+ *   bit 6 ==				1: shadow stack access fault
  *   bit 15 ==				1: SGX MMU page-fault
  */
 enum x86_pf_error_code {
@@ -20,6 +21,7 @@  enum x86_pf_error_code {
 	X86_PF_RSVD	=		1 << 3,
 	X86_PF_INSTR	=		1 << 4,
 	X86_PF_PK	=		1 << 5,
+	X86_PF_SHSTK	=		1 << 6,
 	X86_PF_SGX	=		1 << 15,
 };
 
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
index 7b0d4ab894c8..3004ad044e9b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
@@ -1138,8 +1138,22 @@  access_error(unsigned long error_code, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
 				       (error_code & X86_PF_INSTR), foreign))
 		return 1;
 
+	/*
+	 * Shadow stack accesses (PF_SHSTK=1) are only permitted to
+	 * shadow stack VMAs. All other accesses result in an error.
+	 */
+	if (error_code & X86_PF_SHSTK) {
+		if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHADOW_STACK)))
+			return 1;
+		if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)))
+			return 1;
+		return 0;
+	}
+
 	if (error_code & X86_PF_WRITE) {
 		/* write, present and write, not present: */
+		if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHADOW_STACK))
+			return 1;
 		if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)))
 			return 1;
 		return 0;
@@ -1331,6 +1345,30 @@  void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,
 
 	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, address);
 
+	/*
+	 * When a page becomes COW it changes from a shadow stack permissioned
+	 * page (Write=0,Dirty=1) to (Write=0,Dirty=0,CoW=1), which is simply
+	 * read-only to the CPU. When shadow stack is enabled, a RET would
+	 * normally pop the shadow stack by reading it with a "shadow stack
+	 * read" access. However, in the COW case the shadow stack memory does
+	 * not have shadow stack permissions, it is read-only. So it will
+	 * generate a fault.
+	 *
+	 * For conventionally writable pages, a read can be serviced with a
+	 * read only PTE, and COW would not have to happen. But for shadow
+	 * stack, there isn't the concept of read-only shadow stack memory.
+	 * If it is shadow stack permissioned, it can be modified via CALL and
+	 * RET instructions. So COW needs to happen before any memory can be
+	 * mapped with shadow stack permissions.
+	 *
+	 * Shadow stack accesses (read or write) need to be serviced with
+	 * shadow stack permissioned memory, so in the case of a shadow stack
+	 * read access, treat it as a WRITE fault so both COW will happen and
+	 * the write fault path will tickle maybe_mkwrite() and map the memory
+	 * shadow stack.
+	 */
+	if (error_code & X86_PF_SHSTK)
+		flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
 	if (error_code & X86_PF_WRITE)
 		flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
 	if (error_code & X86_PF_INSTR)