diff mbox

[RFC,v2,15/27] mm/mprotect: Prevent mprotect from changing shadow stack

Message ID 20180710222639.8241-16-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Yu, Yu-cheng July 10, 2018, 10:26 p.m. UTC
Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
---
 mm/mprotect.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

Comments

Dave Hansen July 10, 2018, 11:10 p.m. UTC | #1
On 07/10/2018 03:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>

This still needs a changelog, even if you think it's simple.
> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> @@ -446,6 +446,15 @@ static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t len,
>  	error = -ENOMEM;
>  	if (!vma)
>  		goto out;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Do not allow changing shadow stack memory.
> +	 */
> +	if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHSTK) {
> +		error = -EINVAL;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +

I think this is a _bit_ draconian.  Why shouldn't we be able to use
protection keys with a shadow stack?  Or, set it to PROT_NONE?
Peter Zijlstra July 11, 2018, 9:12 a.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 04:10:08PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/10/2018 03:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
> 
> This still needs a changelog, even if you think it's simple.
> > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > @@ -446,6 +446,15 @@ static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t len,
> >  	error = -ENOMEM;
> >  	if (!vma)
> >  		goto out;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Do not allow changing shadow stack memory.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHSTK) {
> > +		error = -EINVAL;
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> I think this is a _bit_ draconian.  Why shouldn't we be able to use
> protection keys with a shadow stack?  Or, set it to PROT_NONE?

Right, and then there's also madvise() and some of the other accessors.

Why do we need to disallow this? AFAICT the worst that can happen is
that a process wrecks itself, so what?
Yu, Yu-cheng July 11, 2018, 4:07 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 11:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 04:10:08PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > 
> > On 07/10/2018 03:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
> > This still needs a changelog, even if you think it's simple.
> > > 
> > > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > > @@ -446,6 +446,15 @@ static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long
> > > start, size_t len,
> > >  	error = -ENOMEM;
> > >  	if (!vma)
> > >  		goto out;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Do not allow changing shadow stack memory.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHSTK) {
> > > +		error = -EINVAL;
> > > +		goto out;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > I think this is a _bit_ draconian.  Why shouldn't we be able to use
> > protection keys with a shadow stack?  Or, set it to PROT_NONE?
> Right, and then there's also madvise() and some of the other
> accessors.
> 
> Why do we need to disallow this? AFAICT the worst that can happen is
> that a process wrecks itself, so what?

Agree.  I will remove the patch.
Dave Hansen July 11, 2018, 4:22 p.m. UTC | #4
On 07/11/2018 09:07 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>> Why do we need to disallow this? AFAICT the worst that can happen is
>> that a process wrecks itself, so what?
> Agree.  I will remove the patch.

No so quick. :)

We still need to find out a way to handle things that ask for an
mprotect() which is incompatible with shadow stacks.  PROT_READ without
PROT_WRITE comes to mind.  We also need to be careful that we don't
copy-on-write/copy-on-access pages which fault on PROT_NONE.  I *think*
it'll get done correctly but we have to be sure.

BTW, where are all the selftests for this code?  We're slowly building
up a list of pathological things that need to get tested.

I don't think this can or should get merged before we have selftests.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
index 625608bc8962..128dcb880c12 100644
--- a/mm/mprotect.c
+++ b/mm/mprotect.c
@@ -446,6 +446,15 @@  static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t len,
 	error = -ENOMEM;
 	if (!vma)
 		goto out;
+
+	/*
+	 * Do not allow changing shadow stack memory.
+	 */
+	if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHSTK) {
+		error = -EINVAL;
+		goto out;
+	}
+
 	prev = vma->vm_prev;
 	if (unlikely(grows & PROT_GROWSDOWN)) {
 		if (vma->vm_start >= end)