On Sun, 2023-07-16 at 22:50 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > From: Deepak Gupta <debug@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Three architectures (x86, aarch64, riscv) have announced support for > shadow stack. This patch adds arch-agnostic prtcl support to enable > /disable/get/set status of shadow stack and forward control (landing > pad) > flow cfi statuses. What is this about forward control flow? Seems to be just about shadow stack. > > New prctls are > - PR_GET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, PR_SET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS > > Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > [Rebased onto current kernels, renumbering to track other allocations > already upstream, dropping indirect LP, updating to pass arg to set > by value, fix missing prototypes for weak functions and update > title. > -- broonie] > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> This is similar to the arch_prctl() thing x86 does, but I actually see a fair amount of differences: 1. PR_SET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS seems like a strange name for the thing actually doing the whole enabling of the feature which involves allocating memory, etc. And in the future a growing array of different things (enabling push, write, etc). 2. x86 only allows one enabling/disabling operation at a time. So you can't enable shadow stack AND WRSS with one syscall, for example. This is to make it so it's clear which operation failed. Also, since some features depend on others (WRSS), there would need to be some ordering and rollback logic. There was some discussion about a batch enabling arch_prctl() that could report failures independently, but it was deemed premature optimization. 3. It only allows you to lock the whole feature, and not individual subfeatures. For things like WRSS, it came up that there might be an elf bit, like the shadow stack one, but that works a bit different. Instead of only enabling shadow stack when ALL DSOs support the feature, it would want to be enabled if ANY DSOs require it. So userspace might want to do something like lock shadow stack, but leave WRSS unlocked in case a dlopen() call came across a WRSS-requiring DSO. 4. To support CRIU, there needed to be a ptrace-only unlock feature. The arch_prctl() has a special ptrace route to enforce that this unlock is only coming from ptrace. Is there some way to do this with a regular prctl()? 5. I see in the next patch there is hinted support for write and push as well (although I can't find the implementation in the patches, am I missing it?). X86 has something close enough to write, but not push. What is the idea for when the features don't exactly match? I think when Deepak originally brought up this unified prctl-based interface, it seemed far away before we could tell if it *could* be unified. Do either of you have any thoughts on whether the above points could be incorporated?
