Re: [PATCH v11 6/9] x86/cet: Add PTRACE interface for CET

["Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>]

On 9/2/2020 4:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 2, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Yu, Yu-cheng <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/2/2020 1:03 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 2:30 AM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> Add REGSET_CET64/REGSET_CET32 to get/set CET MSRs:
>>>>
>>>>      IA32_U_CET (user-mode CET settings) and
>>>>      IA32_PL3_SSP (user-mode Shadow Stack)
>>> [...]
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/regset.c b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/regset.c
>>> [...]
>>>> +int cetregs_get(struct task_struct *target, const struct user_regset *regset,
>>>> +               struct membuf to)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct fpu *fpu = &target->thread.fpu;
>>>> +       struct cet_user_state *cetregs;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK))
>>>> +               return -ENODEV;
>>>> +
>>>> +       fpu__prepare_read(fpu);
>>>> +       cetregs = get_xsave_addr(&fpu->state.xsave, XFEATURE_CET_USER);
>>>> +       if (!cetregs)
>>>> +               return -EFAULT;
>>> Can this branch ever be hit without a kernel bug? If yes, I think
>>> -EFAULT is probably a weird error code to choose here. If no, this
>>> should probably use WARN_ON(). Same thing in cetregs_set().
>>
>> When a thread is not CET-enabled, its CET state does not exist.  I looked at EFAULT, and it means "Bad address".  Maybe this can be ENODEV, which means "No such device"?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> @@ -1284,6 +1293,13 @@ static struct user_regset x86_32_regsets[] __ro_after_init = {
>>> [...]
>>>> +       [REGSET_CET32] = {
>>>> +               .core_note_type = NT_X86_CET,
>>>> +               .n = sizeof(struct cet_user_state) / sizeof(u64),
>>>> +               .size = sizeof(u64), .align = sizeof(u64),
>>>> +               .active = cetregs_active, .regset_get = cetregs_get,
>>>> +               .set = cetregs_set
>>>> +       },
>>>>   };
>>> Why are there different identifiers for 32-bit CET and 64-bit CET when
>>> they operate on the same structs and have the same handlers? If
>>> there's a good reason for that, the commit message should probably
>>> point that out.
>>
>> Yes, the reason for two regsets is that fill_note_info() does not expect any holes in a regsets.  I will put this in the commit log.
>>
>>
> 
> Perhaps we could fix that instead?
> 

As long as we understand the root cause, leaving it as-is may be OK.

I had a patch in the past, but did not follow up on it.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180717162502.32274-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com/

Yu-cheng