On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:31 PM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Add user-mode indirect branch tracking enabling/disabling
> and supporting routines.
>
> Signed-off-by: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cet.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cet.c
> index 4eba7790c4e4..8bbd63e1a2ba 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cet.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cet.c
[...]
> +static unsigned long ibt_mmap(unsigned long addr, unsigned long len)
> +{
> + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> + unsigned long populate;
> +
> + down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + addr = do_mmap(NULL, addr, len, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> + MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE,
> + VM_DONTDUMP, 0, &populate, NULL);
> + up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> +
> + if (populate)
> + mm_populate(addr, populate);
> +
> + return addr;
> +}
Is this thing going to stay writable? Will any process with an IBT
bitmap be able to disable protections by messing with the bitmap even
if the lock-out mode is active? If so, would it perhaps make sense to
forbid lock-out mode if an IBT bitmap is active, to make it clear that
effective lock-out is impossible in that state?
