Re: [PATCH v2 07/39] x86/cet: Add user control-protection fault handler
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Date: 2022-10-05 22:45:48
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-doc, linux-mm, lkml
On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 11:39 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:29:04PM -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:quoted
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c index d62b2cb85cea..b7dde8730236 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c@@ -229,16 +223,74 @@ enum cp_error_code { CP_ENCL = 1 << 15, }; -DEFINE_IDTENTRY_ERRORCODE(exc_control_protection) +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_SHADOW_STACK +static const char * const control_protection_err[] = { + "unknown", + "near-ret", + "far-ret/iret", + "endbranch", + "rstorssp", + "setssbsy", +}; + +static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(cpf_rate,DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL, + DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST); + +static void do_user_control_protection_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, + unsigned long error_code) { - if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_IBT)) { - pr_err("Unexpected #CP\n"); - BUG(); + struct task_struct *tsk; + unsigned long ssp; + + /* Read SSP before enabling interrupts. */ + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP, ssp); + + cond_local_irq_enable(regs); + + if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK)) + WARN_ONCE(1, "User-mode control protection fault with shadow support disabled\n"); + + tsk = current; + tsk->thread.error_code = error_code; + tsk->thread.trap_nr = X86_TRAP_CP; + + /* Ratelimit to prevent log spamming. */ + if (show_unhandled_signals && unhandled_signal(tsk, SIGSEGV) && + __ratelimit(&cpf_rate)) { + unsigned int cpec; + + cpec = error_code & CP_EC; + if (cpec >= ARRAY_SIZE(control_protection_err)) + cpec = 0; + + pr_emerg("%s[%d] control protection ip:%lx sp:%lx ssp:%lx error:%lx(%s)%s", + tsk->comm, task_pid_nr(tsk), + regs->ip, regs->sp, ssp, error_code, + control_protection_err[cpec], + error_code & CP_ENCL ? " in enclave" : ""); + print_vma_addr(KERN_CONT " in ", regs->ip); + pr_cont("\n"); } - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(user_mode(regs) || (error_code & CP_EC) != CP_ENDBR)) - return;Why are you removing the (error_code & CP_EC) != CP_ENDBR check from the kernel handler?
Argh. It was accidentally removed with the user_mode() check. I'll fix it.
quoted
+ force_sig_fault(SIGSEGV, SEGV_CPERR, (void __user *)0); + cond_local_irq_disable(regs); +} +#else +static void do_user_control_protection_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, + unsigned long error_code) +{ + WARN_ONCE(1, "User-mode control protection fault with shadow support disabled\n"); +} +#endif + +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT + +static __ro_after_init bool ibt_fatal = true; + +extern void ibt_selftest_ip(void); /* code label defined in asm below */ +static void do_kernel_control_protection_fault(struct pt_regs *regs) +{ if (unlikely(regs->ip == (unsigned long)&ibt_selftest_ip)) { regs->ax = 0; return;@@ -283,9 +335,29 @@ static int __init ibt_setup(char *str) } __setup("ibt=", ibt_setup); - +#else +static void do_kernel_control_protection_fault(struct pt_regs*regs) +{ + WARN_ONCE(1, "Kernel-mode control protection fault with IBT disabled\n"); +} #endif /* CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT */ +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT) || defined(CONFIG_X86_SHADOW_STACK) +DEFINE_IDTENTRY_ERRORCODE(exc_control_protection) +{ + if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_IBT) && + !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK)) { + pr_err("Unexpected #CP\n"); + BUG(); + } + + if (user_mode(regs)) + do_user_control_protection_fault(regs, error_code); + else + do_kernel_control_protection_fault(regs);These function names are weirdly long, surely they can do without the _fault part at the very least. And as stated above, I would really like the kernel thing to retain the error_code argument.
I can shorten them. Thanks.
quoted
+} +#endif /* defined(CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT) || defined(CONFIG_X86_SHADOW_STACK) */