From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Bill Roberts" <bill.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] x86/shstk: support via prctl
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2026 18:52:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-205446@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261109182758.252223-5-bill.roberts@arm.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential
issues to consider:
- [High] x86/shstk: missing 32-bit check in prctl status helpers
corrupts user stack
- [Medium] x86/shstk: missing X86_FEATURE_USER_SHSTK check in shadow
stack prctl helpers
- [Low] x86/shstk: unreachable rollback path in
arch_set_shadow_stack_status()
--
commit 9a3ff7cedb6830c75ef0c0aa6dd108c66cfde589
Author: Bill Roberts <bill.roberts@arm.com>
x86/shstk: support via prctl
This commit implements the generic PR_SET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS,
PR_GET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, and PR_LOCK_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS prctl()
operations on x86 using the existing shadow stack helpers.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/shstk.c b/arch/x86/kernel/shstk.c
> index eb690ba90180c..6dfe310634b02 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/shstk.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/shstk.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -630,3 +631,82 @@ bool shstk_is_enabled(void)
> {
> return features_enabled(ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK);
> }
> +
> +/* Handles the generic prctl interface for PR_SET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS and its feature bits */
> +int arch_set_shadow_stack_status(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long status)
> +{
> + int rc;
> + bool shstk_was_enabled = features_enabled(ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK);
> +
> + /*
> + * Enable/disable the full feature set and preserve the original state for rollback.
> + * Only act on changed features, since shstk_prctl() checks locked bits before checking
> + * feature status.
> + */
> + switch (status) {
> + case 0:
> + /*
> + * Do not explicitly disable WRSS. Disabling shadow stack also
> + * disables WRSS, and a locked WRSS must not prevent this.
> + */
> + return shstk_was_enabled ?
> + shstk_prctl(t, ARCH_SHSTK_DISABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK) : 0;
[Severity: Medium]
Does returning 0 here when shstk_was_enabled is false, and delegating
arch_lock_shadow_stack_status() and arch_get_shadow_stack_status() to
shstk_prctl() without checking cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_USER_SHSTK),
cause these prctl() calls to succeed on CPUs without shadow stack support?
shstk_disable(), shstk_setup(), and wrss_control() all check
!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_USER_SHSTK) and return -EOPNOTSUPP, but
ARCH_SHSTK_STATUS and ARCH_SHSTK_LOCK in shstk_prctl() do not, and case 0
here bypasses shstk_disable() when shadow stack is not enabled. On systems
without X86_FEATURE_USER_SHSTK (or booted with nousershstk),
PR_GET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, PR_LOCK_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, and
PR_SET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS(0) return 0 instead of an error, misleading
userspace probing for shadow stack support.
> +
> + case PR_SHADOW_STACK_ENABLE:
> + if (!shstk_was_enabled) {
> + rc = shstk_prctl(t, ARCH_SHSTK_ENABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK);
> + if (rc)
> + return rc;
> + }
> +
> + if (features_enabled(ARCH_SHSTK_WRSS)) {
> + rc = shstk_prctl(t, ARCH_SHSTK_DISABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_WRSS);
> + if (rc && !shstk_was_enabled)
> + shstk_prctl(t, ARCH_SHSTK_DISABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK);
> + return rc;
> + }
[Severity: Low]
Can the rollback check (if (rc && !shstk_was_enabled)) ever be reached?
wrss_control(true) requires ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK to be enabled, shstk_disable()
clears both ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK and ARCH_SHSTK_WRSS, and shstk_setup() only
enables ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK. Whenever features_enabled(ARCH_SHSTK_WRSS) is
true here, shstk_was_enabled is already true.
[ ... ]
> +/* Handles the generic prctl interface for PR_LOCK_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS and its feature bits */
> +int arch_lock_shadow_stack_status(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long status)
> +{
> + return shstk_prctl(t, ARCH_SHSTK_LOCK, status);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * We assume the prctl() feature bits line up with the arch_prctl() specific ones. If not,
> + * the flags returned via arch_get_shadow_stack_status will be mapped wrong.
> + */
> +static_assert(PR_SHADOW_STACK_ENABLE == ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK);
> +static_assert(PR_SHADOW_STACK_WRITE == ARCH_SHSTK_WRSS);
> +int arch_get_shadow_stack_status(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long __user *status)
> +{
> + return shstk_prctl(t, ARCH_SHSTK_STATUS, (unsigned long)status);
> +}
[Severity: High]
Can a 32-bit compat or x32 caller corrupt 4 bytes past its status variable
via PR_GET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS?
Previously, shstk_prctl() was only reachable from sys_arch_prctl(), which
rejects in_ia32_syscall() upfront, so shstk_prctl() only checks
in_ia32_syscall() inside shstk_setup(). Because sys_prctl() is wired to
32-bit and x32 syscalls, calling prctl(PR_GET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, &status,
0, 0, 0) from 32-bit or x32 userspace reaches shstk_prctl(ARCH_SHSTK_STATUS)
and executes an 8-byte put_user() into a 4-byte userspace unsigned long:
arch/x86/kernel/shstk.c:shstk_prctl() {
if (option == ARCH_SHSTK_STATUS) {
return put_user(task->thread.features, (unsigned long __user *)arg2);
}
...
}
32-bit IA32 callers can also lock features via
arch_lock_shadow_stack_status() and call arch_set_shadow_stack_status() to
disable shadow stack, toggle WRSS, or get 0 back for status == 0 instead of
-EINVAL.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261109182758.252223-1-bill.roberts@arm.com?part=4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-09 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-09 18:27 [PATCH v5 0/6] x86: Support shstk via prctl Bill Roberts
2026-11-09 18:27 ` [PATCH v5 1/6] selftests/x86: fix Makefile dependencies Bill Roberts
2026-11-09 18:27 ` [PATCH v5 2/6] selftests/x86: fix fork bug Bill Roberts
2026-11-09 18:36 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-09 18:27 ` [PATCH v5 3/6] selftests/x86: add shadow stack lock test Bill Roberts
2026-11-09 18:35 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-09 18:27 ` [PATCH v5 4/6] x86/shstk: support via prctl Bill Roberts
2026-11-09 18:52 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-11-09 18:27 ` [PATCH v5 5/6] selftests/x86: support header files in extra-files Bill Roberts
2026-11-09 18:27 ` [PATCH v5 6/6] selftests/x86: add generic prctl shadow stack test Bill Roberts
2026-11-09 18:46 ` sashiko-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=sashiko-outbox-205446@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bill.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).