From patchwork Fri May 21 22:11:55 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Yu-cheng Yu X-Patchwork-Id: 12273893 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91539C4707F for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 22:13:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4322A613F7 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 22:13:36 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4322A613F7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B467C8E0059; Fri, 21 May 2021 18:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A75228E005B; Fri, 21 May 2021 18:13:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 289898E0059; Fri, 21 May 2021 18:13:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0153.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.153]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6598E0055 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 18:13:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin34.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0D4181AEF3E for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 22:13:17 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78166640034.34.9F5A6B5 Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1076EC0042D0 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 22:13:11 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: F7rsJeGriWZd0nhaNyRHUcNh7w/lQCDPi05G0gC/7e4q+jo0X5pZrL2uSppLt78vT5KXFUlrJe B7nLA9bprCew== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,9991"; a="201618763" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,319,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="201618763" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 May 2021 15:13:14 -0700 IronPort-SDR: w88fp65axB7GpYrVeLoembUWioEZ0RjZhca/2Sw146bVzQywRUkDON0fNoW6/rp4rpoTQaXKWn GYq07gaYfEzg== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,319,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="441116185" Received: from yyu32-desk.sc.intel.com ([143.183.136.146]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 May 2021 15:13:13 -0700 From: Yu-cheng Yu To: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , 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 , Andy Lutomirski , Balbir Singh , Borislav Petkov , Cyrill Gorcunov , Dave Hansen , Eugene Syromiatnikov , Florian Weimer , "H.J. Lu" , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Kees Cook , Mike Kravetz , Nadav Amit , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Machek , Peter Zijlstra , Randy Dunlap , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Vedvyas Shanbhogue , Dave Martin , Weijiang Yang , Pengfei Xu , Haitao Huang Cc: Yu-cheng Yu , "Kirill A . Shutemov" Subject: [PATCH v27 15/31] x86/mm: Shadow Stack page fault error checking Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 15:11:55 -0700 Message-Id: <20210521221211.29077-16-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.21.0 In-Reply-To: <20210521221211.29077-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> References: <20210521221211.29077-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Authentication-Results: imf06.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=intel.com (policy=none); spf=none (imf06.hostedemail.com: domain of yu-cheng.yu@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 134.134.136.24) smtp.mailfrom=yu-cheng.yu@intel.com X-Stat-Signature: hsmtgkxoux4mgud5iewkyb3fxwf9i5wm X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1076EC0042D0 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-HE-Tag: 1621635191-630248 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Shadow stack accesses are those that are performed by the CPU where it expects to encounter a shadow stack mapping. These accesses are performed implicitly by CALL/RET at the site of the shadow stack pointer. These accesses are made explicitly by shadow stack management instructions like WRUSSQ. Shadow stacks accesses to shadow-stack mapping 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. 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. In handling a shadow stack page fault, verify it occurs within a shadow stack mapping. It is always an error otherwise. For valid shadow stack accesses, set FAULT_FLAG_WRITE to effect copy-on-write. Because clearing _PAGE_DIRTY (vs. _PAGE_RW) is used to trigger the fault, shadow stack read fault and shadow stack write fault are not differentiated and both are handled as a write access. Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu Reviewed-by: Kees Cook Reviewed-by: Kirill A. Shutemov --- arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h | 2 ++ arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+) 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 1c548ad00752..c5d777ed0fa3 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c @@ -1100,6 +1100,17 @@ access_error(unsigned long error_code, struct vm_area_struct *vma) (error_code & X86_PF_INSTR), foreign)) return 1; + /* + * Verify a shadow stack access is within a shadow stack VMA. + * It is always an error otherwise. Normal data access to a + * shadow stack area is checked in the case followed. + */ + if (error_code & X86_PF_SHSTK) { + if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHADOW_STACK)) + return 1; + return 0; + } + if (error_code & X86_PF_WRITE) { /* write, present and write, not present: */ if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))) @@ -1293,6 +1304,14 @@ void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, address); + /* + * Clearing _PAGE_DIRTY is used to detect shadow stack access. + * This method cannot distinguish shadow stack read vs. write. + * For valid shadow stack accesses, set FAULT_FLAG_WRITE to effect + * copy-on-write. + */ + 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)