| Message ID | 20200527030342.13712-1-sandipan@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] selftests: powerpc: Add test for execute-disabled pkeys | expand |
Hi Sandipan, A few comments below ... Sandipan Das <sandipan@linux.ibm.com> writes: > Apart from read and write access, memory protection keys can > also be used for restricting execute permission of pages on > powerpc. This adds a test to verify if the feature works as > expected. > > Signed-off-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan@linux.ibm.com> > --- > > Previous versions can be found at > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20200508162332.65316-1-sandipan@linux.ibm.com/ > > Changes in v2: > - Added .gitignore entry for test binary. > - Fixed builds for older distros where siginfo_t might not have si_pkey as > a formal member based on discussion with Michael. > > --- > tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/.gitignore | 1 + > tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/Makefile | 3 +- > .../selftests/powerpc/mm/pkey_exec_prot.c | 336 ++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 339 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/pkey_exec_prot.c > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/.gitignore > index 2ca523255b1b..8f841f925baa 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/.gitignore > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/.gitignore > @@ -8,3 +8,4 @@ wild_bctr > large_vm_fork_separation > bad_accesses > tlbie_test > +pkey_exec_prot > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/Makefile > index b9103c4bb414..2816229f648b 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/Makefile > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/Makefile > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ noarg: > $(MAKE) -C ../ > > TEST_GEN_PROGS := hugetlb_vs_thp_test subpage_prot prot_sao segv_errors wild_bctr \ > - large_vm_fork_separation bad_accesses > + large_vm_fork_separation bad_accesses pkey_exec_prot > TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED := tlbie_test > TEST_GEN_FILES := tempfile > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ $(OUTPUT)/prot_sao: ../utils.c > $(OUTPUT)/wild_bctr: CFLAGS += -m64 > $(OUTPUT)/large_vm_fork_separation: CFLAGS += -m64 > $(OUTPUT)/bad_accesses: CFLAGS += -m64 > +$(OUTPUT)/pkey_exec_prot: CFLAGS += -m64 > > $(OUTPUT)/tempfile: > dd if=/dev/zero of=$@ bs=64k count=1 > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/pkey_exec_prot.c b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/pkey_exec_prot.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..147fb9ed47d5 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/pkey_exec_prot.c > @@ -0,0 +1,336 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > + > +/* > + * Copyright 2020, Sandipan Das, IBM Corp. > + * > + * Test if applying execute protection on pages using memory > + * protection keys works as expected. > + */ > + > +#define _GNU_SOURCE > +#include <stdio.h> > +#include <stdlib.h> > +#include <string.h> > +#include <signal.h> > + > +#include <time.h> > +#include <unistd.h> > +#include <sys/mman.h> > + > +#include "utils.h" > + > +/* Override definitions as they might be inconsistent */ Can you please expand the comment to say why/where you've seen problems, so one day we can drop these once those old libcs are no longer around. > +#undef PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS > +#define PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS 0x3 > + > +#undef PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE > +#define PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE 0x2 > + > +#undef PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE > +#define PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE 0x4 > + > +/* Older distros might not define this */ > +#ifndef SEGV_PKUERR > +#define SEGV_PKUERR 4 > +#endif > + > +#define SI_PKEY_OFFSET 0x20 > + > +#define SYS_pkey_mprotect 386 > +#define SYS_pkey_alloc 384 > +#define SYS_pkey_free 385 > + > +#define PKEY_BITS_PER_PKEY 2 > +#define NR_PKEYS 32 > + > +#define PKEY_BITS_MASK ((1UL << PKEY_BITS_PER_PKEY) - 1) If you include "reg.h" then there's a mfspr()/mtspr() macro you can use. > +static unsigned long pkeyreg_get(void) > +{ > + unsigned long uamr; The SPR is AMR not uamr? > + asm volatile("mfspr %0, 0xd" : "=r"(uamr)); > + return uamr; > +} > + > +static void pkeyreg_set(unsigned long uamr) > +{ > + asm volatile("isync; mtspr 0xd, %0; isync;" : : "r"(uamr)); > +} You can use mtspr() there, but you'll need to add the isync's yourself. > +static void pkey_set_rights(int pkey, unsigned long rights) > +{ > + unsigned long uamr, shift; > + > + shift = (NR_PKEYS - pkey - 1) * PKEY_BITS_PER_PKEY; > + uamr = pkeyreg_get(); > + uamr &= ~(PKEY_BITS_MASK << shift); > + uamr |= (rights & PKEY_BITS_MASK) << shift; > + pkeyreg_set(uamr); > +} > + > +static int sys_pkey_mprotect(void *addr, size_t len, int prot, int pkey) > +{ > + return syscall(SYS_pkey_mprotect, addr, len, prot, pkey); > +} > + > +static int sys_pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long rights) > +{ > + return syscall(SYS_pkey_alloc, flags, rights); > +} > + > +static int sys_pkey_free(int pkey) > +{ > + return syscall(SYS_pkey_free, pkey); > +} > + > +static volatile int fpkey, fcode, ftype, faults; The "proper" type to use for things accessed in signal handlers is volatile sig_atomic_t, which should work here AFACIS. > +static unsigned long pgsize, numinsns; > +static volatile unsigned int *faddr; > +static unsigned int *insns; > + > +static void segv_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *sinfo, void *ctx) > +{ > + int pkey; > + > +#ifdef si_pkey > + pkey = sinfo->si_pkey; > +#else > + pkey = *((int *)(((char *) sinfo) + SI_PKEY_OFFSET)); > +#endif > + > + /* Check if this fault originated because of the expected reasons */ > + if (sinfo->si_code != SEGV_ACCERR && sinfo->si_code != SEGV_PKUERR) { > + printf("got an unexpected fault, code = %d\n", > + sinfo->si_code); printf() isn't signal safe, so this is a bit dicey. You can call write(2) if you really want to. If this is an unexpected condition you might better to just call _exit(1) to bail out. > + goto fail; > + } > + > + /* Check if this fault originated from the expected address */ > + if (sinfo->si_addr != (void *) faddr) { > + printf("got an unexpected fault, addr = %p\n", > + sinfo->si_addr); > + goto fail; > + } > + > + /* Check if the expected number of faults has been exceeded */ > + if (faults == 0) > + goto fail; > + > + fcode = sinfo->si_code; > + > + /* Restore permissions in order to continue */ > + switch (fcode) { > + case SEGV_ACCERR: > + if (mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE)) { mprotect() also isn't listed as being signal safe, though I don't see why not. So that's probably fine for test code. We could always call the syscall directly if necessary. > + perror("mprotect"); > + goto fail; > + } > + break; > + case SEGV_PKUERR: > + if (pkey != fpkey) > + goto fail; > + > + if (ftype == PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS) { > + pkey_set_rights(fpkey, 0); > + } else if (ftype == PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE) { > + /* > + * Reassociate the exec-only pkey with the region > + * to be able to continue. Unlike AMR, we cannot > + * set IAMR directly from userspace to restore the > + * permissions. > + */ > + if (mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC)) { > + perror("mprotect"); > + goto fail; > + } > + } else { > + goto fail; > + } > + break; > + } > + > + faults--; > + return; > + > +fail: > + /* Restore all page permissions to avoid repetitive faults */ > + if (mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC)) > + perror("mprotect"); > + if (sinfo->si_code == SEGV_PKUERR) > + pkey_set_rights(pkey, 0); > + faults = -1; /* Something unexpected happened */ > +} > + > +static int pkeys_unsupported(void) > +{ > + bool using_hash = false; > + char line[128]; > + int pkey; > + FILE *f; > + > + f = fopen("/proc/cpuinfo", "r"); > + FAIL_IF(!f); > + > + /* Protection keys are currently supported on Hash MMU only */ > + while (fgets(line, sizeof(line), f)) { > + if (strcmp(line, "MMU : Hash\n") == 0) { > + using_hash = true; > + break; > + } > + } We already have using_hash_mmu() in the bad_accesses.c test. Can you move using_hash_mmu() into tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/utils.c, and declare it in tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/utils.h and then use it in your test. > + fclose(f); > + SKIP_IF(!using_hash); > + > + /* Check if the system call is supported */ > + pkey = sys_pkey_alloc(0, 0); > + SKIP_IF(pkey < 0); > + sys_pkey_free(pkey); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int test(void) > +{ > + struct sigaction act; > + int pkey, ret, i; > + > + ret = pkeys_unsupported(); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + /* Setup signal handler */ > + act.sa_handler = 0; > + act.sa_sigaction = segv_handler; > + FAIL_IF(sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, 0, &act.sa_mask) != 0); > + act.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO; > + act.sa_restorer = 0; > + FAIL_IF(sigaction(SIGSEGV, &act, NULL) != 0); > + > + /* Setup executable region */ > + pgsize = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE); getpagesize() is cleaner. > + numinsns = pgsize / sizeof(unsigned int); > + insns = (unsigned int *) mmap(NULL, pgsize, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, > + MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0); > + FAIL_IF(insns == MAP_FAILED); > + > + /* Write the instruction words */ > + for (i = 0; i < numinsns - 1; i++) > + insns[i] = 0x60000000; /* nop */ > + > + /* > + * Later, to jump to the executable region, we use a linked > + * branch which sets the return address automatically in LR. "linked branch" is usually called "branch and link". > + * Use that to return back. > + */ > + insns[numinsns - 1] = 0x4e800020; /* blr */ > + > + /* Allocate a pkey that restricts execution */ > + pkey = sys_pkey_alloc(0, PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE); > + FAIL_IF(pkey < 0); > + > + /* > + * Pick a random instruction address from the executable > + * region. > + */ > + srand(time(NULL)); > + faddr = &insns[rand() % (numinsns - 1)]; I'm not really sure the randomisation adds much, given it's only randomised within the page and the protections only operate at page granularity. > + > + /* The following two cases will avoid SEGV_PKUERR */ > + ftype = -1; > + fpkey = -1; > + > + /* > + * Read an instruction word from the address when AMR bits > + * are not set. You should explain for people who aren't familiar with the ISA that "AMR bits not set" means "read/write access allowed". > + * > + * This should not generate a fault as having PROT_EXEC > + * implicitly allows reads. The pkey currently restricts Whether PROT_EXEC implies read is not well defined (see the man page). If you want to test this case I think you'd be better off specifying PROT_EXEC | PROT_READ explicitly. > + * execution only based on the IAMR bits. The AMR bits are > + * cleared. > + */ > + faults = 0; > + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); > + printf("read from %p, pkey is execute-disabled\n", (void *) faddr); > + i = *faddr; > + FAIL_IF(faults != 0); > + > + /* > + * Write an instruction word to the address when AMR bits > + * are not set. > + * > + * This should generate an access fault as having just > + * PROT_EXEC also restricts writes. The pkey currently OK that one is correct, PROT_EXEC without PROT_WRITE must prevent writes. > + * restricts execution only based on the IAMR bits. The > + * AMR bits are cleared. > + */ > + faults = 1; > + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); > + printf("write to %p, pkey is execute-disabled\n", (void *) faddr); > + *faddr = 0x60000000; /* nop */ faddr is already == nop because you set the entire page to nops previously. It would be a more convincing test if you set faddr to a trap at the beginning, that way later when you execute it you can test that the write of the nop succeeded. > + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_ACCERR); > + > + /* The following three cases will generate SEGV_PKUERR */ > + ftype = PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS; > + fpkey = pkey; > + > + /* > + * Read an instruction word from the address when AMR bits > + * are set. > + * > + * This should generate a pkey fault based on AMR bits only > + * as having PROT_EXEC implicitly allows reads. Again would be better to specify PROT_READ IMHO. > + */ > + faults = 1; > + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); > + printf("read from %p, pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n", > + (void *) faddr); > + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); > + i = *faddr; > + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_PKUERR); > + > + /* > + * Write an instruction word to the address when AMR bits > + * are set. > + * > + * This should generate two faults. First, a pkey fault based > + * on AMR bits and then an access fault based on PROT_EXEC. > + */ > + faults = 2; Setting faults to the expected value and decrementing it in the fault handler is kind of weird. I think it would be clearer if faults was just a zero-based counter of how many faults we've taken, and then you test that it's == 2 below. > + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); > + printf("write to %p, pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n", > + (void *) faddr); > + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); > + *faddr = 0x60000000; /* nop */ > + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_ACCERR); ie. FAIL_IF(faults != 2 || ... ) > + /* > + * Jump to the executable region. This should generate a pkey > + * fault based on IAMR bits. AMR bits will not affect execution. > + */ > + faddr = insns; > + ftype = PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE; > + fpkey = pkey; > + faults = 1; > + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); > + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); > + printf("execute at %p, ", (void *) faddr); > + printf("pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n"); > + > + /* Branch into the executable region */ > + asm volatile("mtctr %0" : : "r"((unsigned long) insns)); > + asm volatile("bctrl"); I'm not sure that's safe, they should be part of a single asm block. > + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_PKUERR); I think as a final test you should remove the protections and confirm you can successfully execute from the insns page. > + /* Cleanup */ > + munmap((void *) insns, pgsize); > + sys_pkey_free(pkey); > + > + return 0; > +} cheers
Hi Michael, Thanks for your suggestions. I had a few questions regarding some of them. On 29/05/20 7:18 am, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> [...] >> + >> +static void pkeyreg_set(unsigned long uamr) >> +{ >> + asm volatile("isync; mtspr 0xd, %0; isync;" : : "r"(uamr)); >> +} > > You can use mtspr() there, but you'll need to add the isync's yourself. > Would it make sense to add a new macro that adds the CSI instructions? Something like this. diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h index 022c5076b2c5..d60f66380cad 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h @@ -15,6 +15,10 @@ #define mtspr(rn, v) asm volatile("mtspr " _str(rn) ",%0" : \ : "r" ((unsigned long)(v)) \ : "memory") +#define mtspr_csi(rn, v) ({ \ + asm volatile("isync; mtspr " _str(rn) ",%0; isync;" : \ + : "r" ((unsigned long)(v)) \ + : "memory"); }) #define mb() asm volatile("sync" : : : "memory"); #define barrier() asm volatile("" : : : "memory"); I also noticed that two of the ptrace-related pkey tests were also not using CSIs. I will fix those too. >> [...] >> + /* The following two cases will avoid SEGV_PKUERR */ >> + ftype = -1; >> + fpkey = -1; >> + >> + /* >> + * Read an instruction word from the address when AMR bits >> + * are not set. > > You should explain for people who aren't familiar with the ISA that "AMR > bits not set" means "read/write access allowed". > >> + * >> + * This should not generate a fault as having PROT_EXEC >> + * implicitly allows reads. The pkey currently restricts > > Whether PROT_EXEC implies read is not well defined (see the man page). > If you want to test this case I think you'd be better off specifying > PROT_EXEC | PROT_READ explicitly. > But I guess specifying PROT_EXEC | PROT_READ defeats the purpose? I can tweak the passing condition though based on whether READ_IMPLIES_EXEC is set in the personality. > [...] >> + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_ACCERR); >> + >> + /* The following three cases will generate SEGV_PKUERR */ >> + ftype = PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS; >> + fpkey = pkey; >> + >> + /* >> + * Read an instruction word from the address when AMR bits >> + * are set. >> + * >> + * This should generate a pkey fault based on AMR bits only >> + * as having PROT_EXEC implicitly allows reads. > > Again would be better to specify PROT_READ IMHO. > I can use a personality check here too. >> + */ >> + faults = 1; >> + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); >> + printf("read from %p, pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n", >> + (void *) faddr); >> + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); >> + i = *faddr; >> + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_PKUERR); >> + >> + /* >> + * Write an instruction word to the address when AMR bits >> + * are set. >> + * >> + * This should generate two faults. First, a pkey fault based >> + * on AMR bits and then an access fault based on PROT_EXEC. >> + */ >> + faults = 2; > > Setting faults to the expected value and decrementing it in the fault > handler is kind of weird. > > I think it would be clearer if faults was just a zero-based counter of > how many faults we've taken, and then you test that it's == 2 below. > >> + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); >> + printf("write to %p, pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n", >> + (void *) faddr); >> + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); >> + *faddr = 0x60000000; /* nop */ >> + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_ACCERR); > > ie. FAIL_IF(faults != 2 || ... ) > Agreed, it is weird. IIRC, I did this to make sure that if the test kept getting repeated faults at the same address and exceeded the maximum number of expected faults i.e. it gets another fault when 'faults' is already zero, then the signal handler will attempt to let the program continue by giving all permissions to the page and also the pkey. Would it make sense to just rename 'faults' to something like 'remaining_faults'? - Sandipan
Hi Michael, On 01/06/20 7:29 am, Sandipan Das wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for your suggestions. I had a few questions regarding some > of them. > > On 29/05/20 7:18 am, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> [...] >>> + >>> +static void pkeyreg_set(unsigned long uamr) >>> +{ >>> + asm volatile("isync; mtspr 0xd, %0; isync;" : : "r"(uamr)); >>> +} >> >> You can use mtspr() there, but you'll need to add the isync's yourself. >> > > Would it make sense to add a new macro that adds the CSI instructions? > Something like this. > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h > index 022c5076b2c5..d60f66380cad 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h > @@ -15,6 +15,10 @@ > #define mtspr(rn, v) asm volatile("mtspr " _str(rn) ",%0" : \ > : "r" ((unsigned long)(v)) \ > : "memory") > +#define mtspr_csi(rn, v) ({ \ > + asm volatile("isync; mtspr " _str(rn) ",%0; isync;" : \ > + : "r" ((unsigned long)(v)) \ > + : "memory"); }) > > #define mb() asm volatile("sync" : : : "memory"); > #define barrier() asm volatile("" : : : "memory"); > > > I also noticed that two of the ptrace-related pkey tests were also not > using CSIs. I will fix those too. > >>> [...] >>> + /* The following two cases will avoid SEGV_PKUERR */ >>> + ftype = -1; >>> + fpkey = -1; >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * Read an instruction word from the address when AMR bits >>> + * are not set. >> >> You should explain for people who aren't familiar with the ISA that "AMR >> bits not set" means "read/write access allowed". >> >>> + * >>> + * This should not generate a fault as having PROT_EXEC >>> + * implicitly allows reads. The pkey currently restricts >> >> Whether PROT_EXEC implies read is not well defined (see the man page). >> If you want to test this case I think you'd be better off specifying >> PROT_EXEC | PROT_READ explicitly. >> > > But I guess specifying PROT_EXEC | PROT_READ defeats the purpose? I can > tweak the passing condition though based on whether READ_IMPLIES_EXEC is > set in the personality. > Sorry, I read this the other way round. This won't work. >> [...] >>> + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_ACCERR); >>> + >>> + /* The following three cases will generate SEGV_PKUERR */ >>> + ftype = PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS; >>> + fpkey = pkey; >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * Read an instruction word from the address when AMR bits >>> + * are set. >>> + * >>> + * This should generate a pkey fault based on AMR bits only >>> + * as having PROT_EXEC implicitly allows reads. >> >> Again would be better to specify PROT_READ IMHO. >> > > I can use a personality check here too. Same here. > >>> + */ >>> + faults = 1; >>> + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); >>> + printf("read from %p, pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n", >>> + (void *) faddr); >>> + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); >>> + i = *faddr; >>> + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_PKUERR); >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * Write an instruction word to the address when AMR bits >>> + * are set. >>> + * >>> + * This should generate two faults. First, a pkey fault based >>> + * on AMR bits and then an access fault based on PROT_EXEC. >>> + */ >>> + faults = 2; >> >> Setting faults to the expected value and decrementing it in the fault >> handler is kind of weird. >> >> I think it would be clearer if faults was just a zero-based counter of >> how many faults we've taken, and then you test that it's == 2 below. >> >>> + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); >>> + printf("write to %p, pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n", >>> + (void *) faddr); >>> + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); >>> + *faddr = 0x60000000; /* nop */ >>> + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_ACCERR); >> >> ie. FAIL_IF(faults != 2 || ... ) >> > > Agreed, it is weird. IIRC, I did this to make sure that if the test > kept getting repeated faults at the same address and exceeded the > maximum number of expected faults i.e. it gets another fault when > 'faults' is already zero, then the signal handler will attempt to > let the program continue by giving all permissions to the page and > also the pkey. Would it make sense to just rename 'faults' to > something like 'remaining_faults'? > > > - Sandipan >
Sandipan Das <sandipan@linux.ibm.com> writes: > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for your suggestions. I had a few questions regarding some > of them. > > On 29/05/20 7:18 am, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> [...] >>> + >>> +static void pkeyreg_set(unsigned long uamr) >>> +{ >>> + asm volatile("isync; mtspr 0xd, %0; isync;" : : "r"(uamr)); >>> +} >> >> You can use mtspr() there, but you'll need to add the isync's yourself. >> > > Would it make sense to add a new macro that adds the CSI instructions? > Something like this. I guess. I'm not sure there's that many places that need it, it's just the pkey tests I think. I'd be more inclined to have a set_amr() helper that includes the isyncs, rather than a generic mtspr() version. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h > index 022c5076b2c5..d60f66380cad 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/include/reg.h > @@ -15,6 +15,10 @@ > #define mtspr(rn, v) asm volatile("mtspr " _str(rn) ",%0" : \ > : "r" ((unsigned long)(v)) \ > : "memory") > +#define mtspr_csi(rn, v) ({ \ > + asm volatile("isync; mtspr " _str(rn) ",%0; isync;" : \ > + : "r" ((unsigned long)(v)) \ > + : "memory"); }) > > #define mb() asm volatile("sync" : : : "memory"); > #define barrier() asm volatile("" : : : "memory"); > > > I also noticed that two of the ptrace-related pkey tests were also not > using CSIs. I will fix those too. > >>> [...] >>> + /* The following two cases will avoid SEGV_PKUERR */ >>> + ftype = -1; >>> + fpkey = -1; >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * Read an instruction word from the address when AMR bits >>> + * are not set. >> >> You should explain for people who aren't familiar with the ISA that "AMR >> bits not set" means "read/write access allowed". >> >>> + * >>> + * This should not generate a fault as having PROT_EXEC >>> + * implicitly allows reads. The pkey currently restricts >> >> Whether PROT_EXEC implies read is not well defined (see the man page). >> If you want to test this case I think you'd be better off specifying >> PROT_EXEC | PROT_READ explicitly. >> > > But I guess specifying PROT_EXEC | PROT_READ defeats the purpose? I can > tweak the passing condition though based on whether READ_IMPLIES_EXEC is > set in the personality. > >> [...] >>> + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_ACCERR); >>> + >>> + /* The following three cases will generate SEGV_PKUERR */ >>> + ftype = PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS; >>> + fpkey = pkey; >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * Read an instruction word from the address when AMR bits >>> + * are set. >>> + * >>> + * This should generate a pkey fault based on AMR bits only >>> + * as having PROT_EXEC implicitly allows reads. >> >> Again would be better to specify PROT_READ IMHO. >> > > I can use a personality check here too. > >>> + */ >>> + faults = 1; >>> + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); >>> + printf("read from %p, pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n", >>> + (void *) faddr); >>> + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); >>> + i = *faddr; >>> + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_PKUERR); >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * Write an instruction word to the address when AMR bits >>> + * are set. >>> + * >>> + * This should generate two faults. First, a pkey fault based >>> + * on AMR bits and then an access fault based on PROT_EXEC. >>> + */ >>> + faults = 2; >> >> Setting faults to the expected value and decrementing it in the fault >> handler is kind of weird. >> >> I think it would be clearer if faults was just a zero-based counter of >> how many faults we've taken, and then you test that it's == 2 below. >> >>> + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); >>> + printf("write to %p, pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n", >>> + (void *) faddr); >>> + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); >>> + *faddr = 0x60000000; /* nop */ >>> + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_ACCERR); >> >> ie. FAIL_IF(faults != 2 || ... ) >> > > Agreed, it is weird. IIRC, I did this to make sure that if the test > kept getting repeated faults at the same address and exceeded the > maximum number of expected faults i.e. it gets another fault when > 'faults' is already zero, then the signal handler will attempt to > let the program continue by giving all permissions to the page and > also the pkey. Would it make sense to just rename 'faults' to > something like 'remaining_faults'? It seems like you've tried to make the code cope with a situation that should not happen, and would indicate a bug if it did happen, in which case I think it would be fine if the test just timed out. But if you want to handle it that's up to you, renaming the variable might help a bit. cheers
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/.gitignore index 2ca523255b1b..8f841f925baa 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/.gitignore +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/.gitignore @@ -8,3 +8,4 @@ wild_bctr large_vm_fork_separation bad_accesses tlbie_test +pkey_exec_prot diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/Makefile index b9103c4bb414..2816229f648b 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/Makefile @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ noarg: $(MAKE) -C ../ TEST_GEN_PROGS := hugetlb_vs_thp_test subpage_prot prot_sao segv_errors wild_bctr \ - large_vm_fork_separation bad_accesses + large_vm_fork_separation bad_accesses pkey_exec_prot TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED := tlbie_test TEST_GEN_FILES := tempfile @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ $(OUTPUT)/prot_sao: ../utils.c $(OUTPUT)/wild_bctr: CFLAGS += -m64 $(OUTPUT)/large_vm_fork_separation: CFLAGS += -m64 $(OUTPUT)/bad_accesses: CFLAGS += -m64 +$(OUTPUT)/pkey_exec_prot: CFLAGS += -m64 $(OUTPUT)/tempfile: dd if=/dev/zero of=$@ bs=64k count=1 diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/pkey_exec_prot.c b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/pkey_exec_prot.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..147fb9ed47d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/pkey_exec_prot.c @@ -0,0 +1,336 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ + +/* + * Copyright 2020, Sandipan Das, IBM Corp. + * + * Test if applying execute protection on pages using memory + * protection keys works as expected. + */ + +#define _GNU_SOURCE +#include <stdio.h> +#include <stdlib.h> +#include <string.h> +#include <signal.h> + +#include <time.h> +#include <unistd.h> +#include <sys/mman.h> + +#include "utils.h" + +/* Override definitions as they might be inconsistent */ +#undef PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS +#define PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS 0x3 + +#undef PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE +#define PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE 0x2 + +#undef PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE +#define PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE 0x4 + +/* Older distros might not define this */ +#ifndef SEGV_PKUERR +#define SEGV_PKUERR 4 +#endif + +#define SI_PKEY_OFFSET 0x20 + +#define SYS_pkey_mprotect 386 +#define SYS_pkey_alloc 384 +#define SYS_pkey_free 385 + +#define PKEY_BITS_PER_PKEY 2 +#define NR_PKEYS 32 + +#define PKEY_BITS_MASK ((1UL << PKEY_BITS_PER_PKEY) - 1) + +static unsigned long pkeyreg_get(void) +{ + unsigned long uamr; + + asm volatile("mfspr %0, 0xd" : "=r"(uamr)); + return uamr; +} + +static void pkeyreg_set(unsigned long uamr) +{ + asm volatile("isync; mtspr 0xd, %0; isync;" : : "r"(uamr)); +} + +static void pkey_set_rights(int pkey, unsigned long rights) +{ + unsigned long uamr, shift; + + shift = (NR_PKEYS - pkey - 1) * PKEY_BITS_PER_PKEY; + uamr = pkeyreg_get(); + uamr &= ~(PKEY_BITS_MASK << shift); + uamr |= (rights & PKEY_BITS_MASK) << shift; + pkeyreg_set(uamr); +} + +static int sys_pkey_mprotect(void *addr, size_t len, int prot, int pkey) +{ + return syscall(SYS_pkey_mprotect, addr, len, prot, pkey); +} + +static int sys_pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long rights) +{ + return syscall(SYS_pkey_alloc, flags, rights); +} + +static int sys_pkey_free(int pkey) +{ + return syscall(SYS_pkey_free, pkey); +} + +static volatile int fpkey, fcode, ftype, faults; +static unsigned long pgsize, numinsns; +static volatile unsigned int *faddr; +static unsigned int *insns; + +static void segv_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *sinfo, void *ctx) +{ + int pkey; + +#ifdef si_pkey + pkey = sinfo->si_pkey; +#else + pkey = *((int *)(((char *) sinfo) + SI_PKEY_OFFSET)); +#endif + + /* Check if this fault originated because of the expected reasons */ + if (sinfo->si_code != SEGV_ACCERR && sinfo->si_code != SEGV_PKUERR) { + printf("got an unexpected fault, code = %d\n", + sinfo->si_code); + goto fail; + } + + /* Check if this fault originated from the expected address */ + if (sinfo->si_addr != (void *) faddr) { + printf("got an unexpected fault, addr = %p\n", + sinfo->si_addr); + goto fail; + } + + /* Check if the expected number of faults has been exceeded */ + if (faults == 0) + goto fail; + + fcode = sinfo->si_code; + + /* Restore permissions in order to continue */ + switch (fcode) { + case SEGV_ACCERR: + if (mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE)) { + perror("mprotect"); + goto fail; + } + break; + case SEGV_PKUERR: + if (pkey != fpkey) + goto fail; + + if (ftype == PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS) { + pkey_set_rights(fpkey, 0); + } else if (ftype == PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE) { + /* + * Reassociate the exec-only pkey with the region + * to be able to continue. Unlike AMR, we cannot + * set IAMR directly from userspace to restore the + * permissions. + */ + if (mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC)) { + perror("mprotect"); + goto fail; + } + } else { + goto fail; + } + break; + } + + faults--; + return; + +fail: + /* Restore all page permissions to avoid repetitive faults */ + if (mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC)) + perror("mprotect"); + if (sinfo->si_code == SEGV_PKUERR) + pkey_set_rights(pkey, 0); + faults = -1; /* Something unexpected happened */ +} + +static int pkeys_unsupported(void) +{ + bool using_hash = false; + char line[128]; + int pkey; + FILE *f; + + f = fopen("/proc/cpuinfo", "r"); + FAIL_IF(!f); + + /* Protection keys are currently supported on Hash MMU only */ + while (fgets(line, sizeof(line), f)) { + if (strcmp(line, "MMU : Hash\n") == 0) { + using_hash = true; + break; + } + } + + fclose(f); + SKIP_IF(!using_hash); + + /* Check if the system call is supported */ + pkey = sys_pkey_alloc(0, 0); + SKIP_IF(pkey < 0); + sys_pkey_free(pkey); + + return 0; +} + +static int test(void) +{ + struct sigaction act; + int pkey, ret, i; + + ret = pkeys_unsupported(); + if (ret) + return ret; + + /* Setup signal handler */ + act.sa_handler = 0; + act.sa_sigaction = segv_handler; + FAIL_IF(sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, 0, &act.sa_mask) != 0); + act.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO; + act.sa_restorer = 0; + FAIL_IF(sigaction(SIGSEGV, &act, NULL) != 0); + + /* Setup executable region */ + pgsize = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE); + numinsns = pgsize / sizeof(unsigned int); + insns = (unsigned int *) mmap(NULL, pgsize, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, + MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0); + FAIL_IF(insns == MAP_FAILED); + + /* Write the instruction words */ + for (i = 0; i < numinsns - 1; i++) + insns[i] = 0x60000000; /* nop */ + + /* + * Later, to jump to the executable region, we use a linked + * branch which sets the return address automatically in LR. + * Use that to return back. + */ + insns[numinsns - 1] = 0x4e800020; /* blr */ + + /* Allocate a pkey that restricts execution */ + pkey = sys_pkey_alloc(0, PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE); + FAIL_IF(pkey < 0); + + /* + * Pick a random instruction address from the executable + * region. + */ + srand(time(NULL)); + faddr = &insns[rand() % (numinsns - 1)]; + + /* The following two cases will avoid SEGV_PKUERR */ + ftype = -1; + fpkey = -1; + + /* + * Read an instruction word from the address when AMR bits + * are not set. + * + * This should not generate a fault as having PROT_EXEC + * implicitly allows reads. The pkey currently restricts + * execution only based on the IAMR bits. The AMR bits are + * cleared. + */ + faults = 0; + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); + printf("read from %p, pkey is execute-disabled\n", (void *) faddr); + i = *faddr; + FAIL_IF(faults != 0); + + /* + * Write an instruction word to the address when AMR bits + * are not set. + * + * This should generate an access fault as having just + * PROT_EXEC also restricts writes. The pkey currently + * restricts execution only based on the IAMR bits. The + * AMR bits are cleared. + */ + faults = 1; + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); + printf("write to %p, pkey is execute-disabled\n", (void *) faddr); + *faddr = 0x60000000; /* nop */ + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_ACCERR); + + /* The following three cases will generate SEGV_PKUERR */ + ftype = PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS; + fpkey = pkey; + + /* + * Read an instruction word from the address when AMR bits + * are set. + * + * This should generate a pkey fault based on AMR bits only + * as having PROT_EXEC implicitly allows reads. + */ + faults = 1; + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); + printf("read from %p, pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n", + (void *) faddr); + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); + i = *faddr; + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_PKUERR); + + /* + * Write an instruction word to the address when AMR bits + * are set. + * + * This should generate two faults. First, a pkey fault based + * on AMR bits and then an access fault based on PROT_EXEC. + */ + faults = 2; + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); + printf("write to %p, pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n", + (void *) faddr); + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); + *faddr = 0x60000000; /* nop */ + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_ACCERR); + + /* + * Jump to the executable region. This should generate a pkey + * fault based on IAMR bits. AMR bits will not affect execution. + */ + faddr = insns; + ftype = PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE; + fpkey = pkey; + faults = 1; + FAIL_IF(sys_pkey_mprotect(insns, pgsize, PROT_EXEC, pkey) != 0); + pkey_set_rights(pkey, PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS); + printf("execute at %p, ", (void *) faddr); + printf("pkey is execute-disabled, access-disabled\n"); + + /* Branch into the executable region */ + asm volatile("mtctr %0" : : "r"((unsigned long) insns)); + asm volatile("bctrl"); + FAIL_IF(faults != 0 || fcode != SEGV_PKUERR); + + /* Cleanup */ + munmap((void *) insns, pgsize); + sys_pkey_free(pkey); + + return 0; +} + +int main(void) +{ + test_harness(test, "pkey_exec_prot"); +}
Apart from read and write access, memory protection keys can also be used for restricting execute permission of pages on powerpc. This adds a test to verify if the feature works as expected. Signed-off-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan@linux.ibm.com> --- Previous versions can be found at v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20200508162332.65316-1-sandipan@linux.ibm.com/ Changes in v2: - Added .gitignore entry for test binary. - Fixed builds for older distros where siginfo_t might not have si_pkey as a formal member based on discussion with Michael. --- tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/.gitignore | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/Makefile | 3 +- .../selftests/powerpc/mm/pkey_exec_prot.c | 336 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 339 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/mm/pkey_exec_prot.c