On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:30 PM Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2023-05-04 20:09, Florent Revest wrote:
> > Add some tests to cover the new PR_MDWE_NO_INHERIT flag of the
> > PR_SET_MDWE prctl.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/mm/mdwe_test.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mdwe_test.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mdwe_test.c
> > index 91aa9c3099e7..9f08ed1b99ae 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mdwe_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mdwe_test.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
> >
> > TEST(prctl_flags)
> > {
> > + EXPECT_LT(prctl(PR_SET_MDWE, PR_MDWE_NO_INHERIT, 0L, 0L, 7L), 0);
> > +
>
> PR_MDWE_NO_INHERIT is defined to an int constant, so passing it to
> prctl() without a cast to long or similar may produce wrong code on
> 64-bit targets (ABIs typically don't require the compiler to clear the
> upper 32 bits of a 64-bit register when passing a 32-bit argument, so
> va_arg(arg, unsigned long) in prctl() implementation might get junk).
Ah, good catch Alexey! :)
> Arguably, defining PR_MDWE_* to plain int constants is a bug, or at
> least a footgun for users of uapi headers.
As part of the next version of this series, I'm happy to:
1- change the existing PR_MDWE_REFUSE_EXEC_GAIN to 1UL
2- introduce PR_MDWE_NO_INHERIT as 2UL
But I'm surprised that most of the macros in
include/uapi/linux/prctl.h are the same sort of footguns already ?
Hasn't it been an issue for other prctls yet ?
