From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-il1-f172.google.com (mail-il1-f172.google.com [209.85.166.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 188A719645C for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2024 23:18:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727911123; cv=none; b=KOjoy3MJS45ECBhQ0iT8iSgFfXCWS/ypSzRz9D87b05ol3lDMg84OpRG4ypR1wpvIA5opHmbzNk/sjjrYTrfnFP91RDpQ/rIP74wW5fiZ3i5tk9S5zKgYEQLO0aAvI/OadVvc9AAU3yUhmcDu6SvHCCJy5cDnEXk6E/gRNM2/7M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727911123; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3AY/Xibv+ooAkeGmbwNSxZtidpoBM2OH0p232MaUzWs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=dG2RbPljJV6+2aJzeN9RlbuXZSuUCZOzUuVRAPXSonai/ILhikKaPhkJIdYLRA4jPumcBMJg8jw+wIciwVx542gvP9Tz+sTU18RGj5d8oGwl5Xbbf3O7alnx3WoN+YcRk5xL2Wzf86ZFB2k/2ib/uhFC//en0LFyj9xcvumqUmM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxfoundation.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=fVbqTBA6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="fVbqTBA6" Received: by mail-il1-f172.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3a2759a1b71so1526095ab.0 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2024 16:18:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; t=1727911119; x=1728515919; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=N0tzIbu3PWgM40G7RdCFPIGvONur3f2vXgMqwgFABgc=; b=fVbqTBA6e8nu0s2DjgoY64spKpdqonF4PiBgZclBvE8euvwboSGSvpalZ/APEIz+Cs XbplVFJqkyYR2QZTooIWY3CVO39bEuqEIeeG9eADS7I7+tCkIZMoYmwlJ+W+viS+aa8F Izlej/+Mxjh9IwXSO0+/oBVM3p/0giE3VMpso= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1727911119; x=1728515919; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=N0tzIbu3PWgM40G7RdCFPIGvONur3f2vXgMqwgFABgc=; b=DXLCGMOBOgyv2t7FNUKx9fsaDJE8sAwoyn59bJZrkm9+wplzz3wQy9LBUIXwwNd5KY BFXLS0NaDUuUNnfjFYQC1mxizrO7Q5E+A+DA1qGU0gBmpGJaRP/alfTZNHHHg5iCNw6q P2SgYzk50wGWtd+Q+/MOemkx/HFPLUeM+4Ua0nNG8eoFguXe3nqfrtES6E6eat4eDMKB DleT+1aaBS2by6kKBSFGynUoymB8eu6MLOT29nETKpXN/Nh8Qy1Llfo62wj9d/Sw/jN4 PCsC3bpfZfm7N4FKbxyfycZCDTAHlSmPlH/CPxlRRMLjSm3Xx4qMeEoje1tiCUCPP9Mu gClg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUMLi9NaMkLMM/vSi0lAq5v9KDrcGnSJwFarwSEMEl1Omy4UaR2VqVMECMCJUX9vGmq4118tpHFL/OG@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwcvCSf5a0AF9vJaRyH5dSQpUrWiqeJOVLFaL/lGVkPbun9I0VK Xr+JdbjZjEbiG0sczmE7jjWQR6QwLbHwBBCCiz+mrZZz2o7BtKaTTokvQ6x8joo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFL8hnt5JUf9WxVcEnQ19+fqUwizJB1XOjaA9BgAfzvr5IgbN+Gz88hsFXkreJu4dtMzy3iLQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1561:b0:3a3:63c3:352e with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3a365944538mr51124395ab.19.1727911118957; Wed, 02 Oct 2024 16:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.128] ([38.175.170.29]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 8926c6da1cb9f-4db559b1809sm28341173.74.2024.10.02.16.18.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Oct 2024 16:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 17:18:36 -0600 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 33/33] kselftest/riscv: kselftest for user mode cfi To: Deepak Gupta , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , "Liam R. Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Lorenzo Stoakes , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Conor Dooley , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Arnd Bergmann , Christian Brauner , Peter Zijlstra , Oleg Nesterov , Eric Biederman , Kees Cook , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, alistair.francis@wdc.com, richard.henderson@linaro.org, jim.shu@sifive.com, andybnac@gmail.com, kito.cheng@sifive.com, charlie@rivosinc.com, atishp@rivosinc.com, evan@rivosinc.com, cleger@rivosinc.com, alexghiti@rivosinc.com, samitolvanen@google.com, broonie@kernel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, Shuah Khan References: <20241001-v5_user_cfi_series-v1-0-3ba65b6e550f@rivosinc.com> <20241001-v5_user_cfi_series-v1-33-3ba65b6e550f@rivosinc.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Shuah Khan In-Reply-To: <20241001-v5_user_cfi_series-v1-33-3ba65b6e550f@rivosinc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/1/24 10:06, Deepak Gupta wrote: > Adds kselftest for RISC-V control flow integrity implementation for user > mode. There is not a lot going on in kernel for enabling landing pad for > user mode. cfi selftest are intended to be compiled with zicfilp and > zicfiss enabled compiler. Thus kselftest simply checks if landing pad and > shadow stack for the binary and process are enabled or not. selftest then > register a signal handler for SIGSEGV. Any control flow violation are > reported as SIGSEGV with si_code = SEGV_CPERR. Test will fail on receiving > any SEGV_CPERR. Shadow stack part has more changes in kernel and thus there > are separate tests for that > - Exercise `map_shadow_stack` syscall > - `fork` test to make sure COW works for shadow stack pages > - gup tests > As of today kernel uses FOLL_FORCE when access happens to memory via > /proc//mem. Not breaking that for shadow stack > - signal test. Make sure signal delivery results in token creation on > shadow stack and consumes (and verifies) token on sigreturn > - shadow stack protection test. attempts to write using regular store > instruction on shadow stack memory must result in access faults > Include test output here > Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta I gave up in the middle. Please send v2 with the following things fixed: - Alignment problems in defines. I pointed out a couple. - Too many debug messages. These make the test report hard to read. Take a look at printf() closely and get rid of debug messages. - Combine messages. I highlighted a few. - Start messages with capital letter - Think about messages that can give user information. I highlighted a few. > --- > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/Makefile | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/.gitignore | 3 + > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/Makefile | 10 + > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/cfi_rv_test.h | 83 +++++ > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/riscv_cfi_test.c | 82 +++++ > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/shadowstack.c | 362 +++++++++++++++++++++ > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/shadowstack.h | 37 +++ > 7 files changed, 578 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/Makefile > index 7ce03d832b64..6e142fe004ab 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/Makefile > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/Makefile > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ > ARCH ?= $(shell uname -m 2>/dev/null || echo not) > > ifneq (,$(filter $(ARCH),riscv)) > -RISCV_SUBTARGETS ?= hwprobe vector mm sigreturn > +RISCV_SUBTARGETS ?= hwprobe vector mm sigreturn cfi > else > RISCV_SUBTARGETS := > endif > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/.gitignore > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..ce7623f9da28 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/.gitignore > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ > +cfitests > +riscv_cfi_test > +shadowstack > \ No newline at end of file The above look odd to me. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/Makefile > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..b65f7ff38a32 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/Makefile > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ > +CFLAGS += -I$(top_srcdir)/tools/include > + > +CFLAGS += -march=rv64gc_zicfilp_zicfiss > + > +TEST_GEN_PROGS := cfitests > + > +include ../../lib.mk > + > +$(OUTPUT)/cfitests: riscv_cfi_test.c shadowstack.c > + $(CC) -o$@ $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) $^ > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/cfi_rv_test.h b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/cfi_rv_test.h > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..fa1cf7183672 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/cfi_rv_test.h > @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > + > +#ifndef SELFTEST_RISCV_CFI_H > +#define SELFTEST_RISCV_CFI_H > +#include > +#include > +#include "shadowstack.h" > + > +#define RISCV_CFI_SELFTEST_COUNT RISCV_SHADOW_STACK_TESTS > + > +#define CHILD_EXIT_CODE_SSWRITE 10 > +#define CHILD_EXIT_CODE_SIG_TEST 11 Align these defines please. > + > +#define my_syscall5(num, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5) \ > +({ \ > + register long _num __asm__ ("a7") = (num); \ > + register long _arg1 __asm__ ("a0") = (long)(arg1); \ > + register long _arg2 __asm__ ("a1") = (long)(arg2); \ > + register long _arg3 __asm__ ("a2") = (long)(arg3); \ > + register long _arg4 __asm__ ("a3") = (long)(arg4); \ > + register long _arg5 __asm__ ("a4") = (long)(arg5); \ > + \ > + __asm__ volatile ( \ > + "ecall\n" \ > + : "+r"(_arg1) \ > + : "r"(_arg2), "r"(_arg3), "r"(_arg4), "r"(_arg5), \ > + "r"(_num) > + : "memory", "cc" \ > + ); \ > + _arg1; \ > +}) > + This is so hard to read. Can you align the tabs for "\" > +#define my_syscall3(num, arg1, arg2, arg3) \ > +({ \ > + register long _num __asm__ ("a7") = (num); \ > + register long _arg1 __asm__ ("a0") = (long)(arg1); \ > + register long _arg2 __asm__ ("a1") = (long)(arg2); \ > + register long _arg3 __asm__ ("a2") = (long)(arg3); \ > + \ > + __asm__ volatile ( \ > + "ecall\n" \ > + : "+r"(_arg1) \ > + : "r"(_arg2), "r"(_arg3), \ > + "r"(_num) \ > + : "memory", "cc" \ > + ); \ > + _arg1; \ > +}) > + Same here. > +#ifndef __NR_prctl > +#define __NR_prctl 167 > +#endif > + > +#ifndef __NR_map_shadow_stack > +#define __NR_map_shadow_stack 453 Why do we need to define these? Shouldn't including asm-generic/unistd.h sufficient? > +#endif > + > +#define CSR_SSP 0x011 > + > +#ifdef __ASSEMBLY__ > +#define __ASM_STR(x) x > +#else > +#define __ASM_STR(x) #x > +#endif > + > +#define csr_read(csr) \ > +({ \ > + register unsigned long __v; \ > + __asm__ __volatile__ ("csrr %0, " __ASM_STR(csr) \ > + : "=r" (__v) : \ > + : "memory"); \ > + __v; \ > +}) > + > +#define csr_write(csr, val) \ > +({ \ > + unsigned long __v = (unsigned long) (val); \ > + __asm__ __volatile__ ("csrw " __ASM_STR(csr) ", %0" \ > + : : "rK" (__v) \ > + : "memory"); \ > +}) > + Please fix alignment in the entire file. This is very difficult to read. > +#endif > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/riscv_cfi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/riscv_cfi_test.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..f22b3f0f24de > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/riscv_cfi_test.c > @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > + > +#include "../../kselftest.h" > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include "cfi_rv_test.h" > + > +/* do not optimize cfi related test functions */ > +#pragma GCC push_options > +#pragma GCC optimize("O0") > + > +void sigsegv_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *si, void *uc) > +{ > + struct ucontext *ctx = (struct ucontext *) uc; > + > + if (si->si_code == SEGV_CPERR) { > + printf("Control flow violation happened somewhere\n"); > + printf("pc where violation happened %lx\n", ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[0]); Why do you need two print statements, collapse them. > + exit(-1); > + } > + > + printf("In sigsegv handler\n"); Remove this - looks like debug message. > + /* all other cases are expected to be of shadow stack write case */ > + exit(CHILD_EXIT_CODE_SSWRITE); > +} > + > +bool register_signal_handler(void) > +{ > + struct sigaction sa = {}; > + > + sa.sa_sigaction = sigsegv_handler; > + sa.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO; > + if (sigaction(SIGSEGV, &sa, NULL)) { > + printf("registering signal handler for landing pad violation failed\n"); Include strerror() to get the system error message. > + return false; > + } > + > + return true; > +} > + > +int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > +{ > + int ret = 0; > + unsigned long lpad_status = 0, ss_status = 0; > + > + ksft_print_header(); > + > + ksft_set_plan(RISCV_CFI_SELFTEST_COUNT); > + > + ksft_print_msg("starting risc-v tests\n"); Starting instead of starting. > + > + /* > + * Landing pad test. Not a lot of kernel changes to support landing > + * pad for user mode except lighting up a bit in senvcfg via a prctl > + * Enable landing pad through out the execution of test binary > + */ > + ret = my_syscall5(__NR_prctl, PR_GET_INDIR_BR_LP_STATUS, &lpad_status, 0, 0, 0); > + if (ret) > + ksft_exit_skip("Get landing pad status failed with %d\n", ret); Does this mean __NR_prctl isn't fully supported? It would informative if the message says that instead "Get landing pad status failed" > + > + if (!(lpad_status & PR_INDIR_BR_LP_ENABLE)) > + ksft_exit_skip("landing pad is not enabled, should be enabled via glibc\n"); Landing insteads of landing. Use concistent upper case for starting messages that go into test report. > + > + ret = my_syscall5(__NR_prctl, PR_GET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, &ss_status, 0, 0, 0); > + if (ret) > + ksft_exit_skip("Get shadow stack failed with %d\n", ret); Same here. Make this informative - what does this mean? What should user do when they see this message? > + > + if (!(ss_status & PR_SHADOW_STACK_ENABLE)) > + ksft_exit_skip("shadow stack is not enabled, should be enabled via glibc\n"); Shadow > + > + if (!register_signal_handler()) > + ksft_exit_skip("registering signal handler for SIGSEGV failed\n"); Registerting > + > + ksft_print_msg("landing pad and shadow stack are enabled for binary\n"); > + ksft_print_msg("starting risc-v shadow stack tests\n"); Do you need the above messages? Collapse them if you really need them in the report. > + execute_shadow_stack_tests(); > + > + ksft_finished(); > +} > + > +#pragma GCC pop_options > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/shadowstack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/shadowstack.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..2f65eb970c44 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/shadowstack.c > @@ -0,0 +1,362 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > + > +#include "../../kselftest.h" > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include "shadowstack.h" > +#include "cfi_rv_test.h" > + > +/* do not optimize shadow stack related test functions */ > +#pragma GCC push_options > +#pragma GCC optimize("O0") > + > +void zar(void) > +{ > + unsigned long ssp = 0; > + > + ssp = csr_read(CSR_SSP); > + printf("inside %s and shadow stack ptr is %lx\n", __func__, ssp); Debug message? get rid of it. > +} > + > +void bar(void) > +{ > + printf("inside %s\n", __func__); Same here - debug messages make report hard to read. > + zar(); > +} > + > +void foo(void) > +{ > + printf("inside %s\n", __func__); > + bar(); > +} > + > +void zar_child(void) > +{ > + unsigned long ssp = 0; > + > + ssp = csr_read(CSR_SSP); > + printf("inside %s and shadow stack ptr is %lx\n", __func__, ssp); > +} > + > +void bar_child(void) > +{ > + printf("inside %s\n", __func__); > + zar_child(); > +} > + > +void foo_child(void) > +{ > + printf("inside %s\n", __func__); > + bar_child(); > +} > + > +typedef void (call_func_ptr)(void); > +/* > + * call couple of functions to test push pop. > + */ > +int shadow_stack_call_tests(call_func_ptr fn_ptr, bool parent) > +{ > + if (parent) > + printf("call test for parent\n"); > + else > + printf("call test for child\n"); > + > + (fn_ptr)(); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +/* forks a thread, and ensure shadow stacks fork out */ > +bool shadow_stack_fork_test(unsigned long test_num, void *ctx) > +{ > + int pid = 0, child_status = 0, parent_pid = 0, ret = 0; > + unsigned long ss_status = 0; > + > + printf("exercising shadow stack fork test\n"); > + > + ret = my_syscall5(__NR_prctl, PR_GET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, &ss_status, 0, 0, 0); > + if (ret) { > + printf("shadow stack get status prctl failed with errorcode %d\n", ret); > + return false; > + } > + > + if (!(ss_status & PR_SHADOW_STACK_ENABLE)) > + ksft_exit_skip("shadow stack is not enabled, should be enabled via glibc\n"); > + > + parent_pid = getpid(); > + pid = fork(); > + > + if (pid) { > + printf("Parent pid %d and child pid %d\n", parent_pid, pid); > + shadow_stack_call_tests(&foo, true); > + } else > + shadow_stack_call_tests(&foo_child, false); > + > + if (pid) { > + printf("waiting on child to finish\n"); > + wait(&child_status); > + } else { > + /* exit child gracefully */ > + exit(0); > + } > + > + if (pid && WIFSIGNALED(child_status)) { > + printf("child faulted"); > + return false; > + } > + > + return true; > +} > + > +/* exercise `map_shadow_stack`, pivot to it and call some functions to ensure it works */ > +#define SHADOW_STACK_ALLOC_SIZE 4096 > +bool shadow_stack_map_test(unsigned long test_num, void *ctx) > +{ > + unsigned long shdw_addr; > + int ret = 0; > + > + shdw_addr = my_syscall3(__NR_map_shadow_stack, NULL, SHADOW_STACK_ALLOC_SIZE, 0); > + > + if (((long) shdw_addr) <= 0) { > + printf("map_shadow_stack failed with error code %d\n", (int) shdw_addr); > + return false; > + } > + > + ret = munmap((void *) shdw_addr, SHADOW_STACK_ALLOC_SIZE); > + > + if (ret) { > + printf("munmap failed with error code %d\n", ret); > + return false; > + } > + > + return true; > +} > + > +/* > + * shadow stack protection tests. map a shadow stack and > + * validate all memory protections work on it > + */ > +bool shadow_stack_protection_test(unsigned long test_num, void *ctx) > +{ > + unsigned long shdw_addr; > + unsigned long *write_addr = NULL; > + int ret = 0, pid = 0, child_status = 0; > + > + shdw_addr = my_syscall3(__NR_map_shadow_stack, NULL, SHADOW_STACK_ALLOC_SIZE, 0); > + > + if (((long) shdw_addr) <= 0) { > + printf("map_shadow_stack failed with error code %d\n", (int) shdw_addr); > + return false; > + } > + > + write_addr = (unsigned long *) shdw_addr; > + pid = fork(); > + > + /* no child was created, return false */ > + if (pid == -1) > + return false; > + > + /* > + * try to perform a store from child on shadow stack memory > + * it should result in SIGSEGV > + */ > + if (!pid) { > + /* below write must lead to SIGSEGV */ > + *write_addr = 0xdeadbeef; > + } else { > + wait(&child_status); > + } > + > + /* test fail, if 0xdeadbeef present on shadow stack address */ > + if (*write_addr == 0xdeadbeef) { > + printf("write suceeded\n"); > + return false; > + } > + > + /* if child reached here, then fail */ > + if (!pid) { > + printf("child reached unreachable state\n"); > + return false; > + } > + > + /* if child exited via signal handler but not for write on ss */ > + if (WIFEXITED(child_status) && > + WEXITSTATUS(child_status) != CHILD_EXIT_CODE_SSWRITE) { > + printf("child wasn't signaled for write on shadow stack\n"); > + return false; > + } > + > + ret = munmap(write_addr, SHADOW_STACK_ALLOC_SIZE); > + if (ret) { > + printf("munmap failed with error code %d\n", ret); > + return false; > + } > + > + return true; > +} > + > +#define SS_MAGIC_WRITE_VAL 0xbeefdead > + > +int gup_tests(int mem_fd, unsigned long *shdw_addr) > +{ > + unsigned long val = 0; > + > + lseek(mem_fd, (unsigned long)shdw_addr, SEEK_SET); > + if (read(mem_fd, &val, sizeof(val)) < 0) { > + printf("reading shadow stack mem via gup failed\n"); > + return 1; > + } > + > + val = SS_MAGIC_WRITE_VAL; > + lseek(mem_fd, (unsigned long)shdw_addr, SEEK_SET); > + if (write(mem_fd, &val, sizeof(val)) < 0) { > + printf("writing shadow stack mem via gup failed\n"); > + return 1; > + } > + > + if (*shdw_addr != SS_MAGIC_WRITE_VAL) { > + printf("GUP write to shadow stack memory didn't happen\n"); > + return 1; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +bool shadow_stack_gup_tests(unsigned long test_num, void *ctx) > +{ > + unsigned long shdw_addr = 0; > + unsigned long *write_addr = NULL; > + int fd = 0; > + bool ret = false; > + > + shdw_addr = my_syscall3(__NR_map_shadow_stack, NULL, SHADOW_STACK_ALLOC_SIZE, 0); > + > + if (((long) shdw_addr) <= 0) { > + printf("map_shadow_stack failed with error code %d\n", (int) shdw_addr); > + return false; > + } > + > + write_addr = (unsigned long *) shdw_addr; > + > + fd = open("/proc/self/mem", O_RDWR); > + if (fd == -1) > + return false; > + > + if (gup_tests(fd, write_addr)) { > + printf("gup tests failed\n"); > + goto out; > + } > + > + ret = true; > +out: > + if (shdw_addr && munmap(write_addr, SHADOW_STACK_ALLOC_SIZE)) { > + printf("munmap failed with error code %d\n", ret); > + ret = false; > + } > + > + return ret; > +} > + > +volatile bool break_loop; > + > +void sigusr1_handler(int signo) > +{ > + printf("In sigusr1 handler\n"); > + break_loop = true; > +} > + > +bool sigusr1_signal_test(void) > +{ > + struct sigaction sa = {}; > + > + sa.sa_handler = sigusr1_handler; > + sa.sa_flags = 0; > + sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask); > + if (sigaction(SIGUSR1, &sa, NULL)) { > + printf("registering signal handler for SIGUSR1 failed\n"); > + return false; > + } > + > + return true; > +} > +/* > + * shadow stack signal test. shadow stack must be enabled. > + * register a signal, fork another thread which is waiting > + * on signal. Send a signal from parent to child, verify > + * that signal was received by child. If not test fails > + */ > +bool shadow_stack_signal_test(unsigned long test_num, void *ctx) > +{ > + int pid = 0, child_status = 0, ret = 0; > + unsigned long ss_status = 0; > + > + ret = my_syscall5(__NR_prctl, PR_GET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, &ss_status, 0, 0, 0); > + if (ret) { > + printf("shadow stack get status prctl failed with errorcode %d\n", ret); > + return false; > + } > + > + if (!(ss_status & PR_SHADOW_STACK_ENABLE)) > + ksft_exit_skip("shadow stack is not enabled, should be enabled via glibc\n"); > + > + /* this should be caught by signal handler and do an exit */ > + if (!sigusr1_signal_test()) { > + printf("registering sigusr1 handler failed\n"); > + exit(-1); > + } > + > + pid = fork(); > + > + if (pid == -1) { > + printf("signal test: fork failed\n"); > + goto out; > + } > + > + if (pid == 0) { > + while (!break_loop) > + sleep(1); > + > + exit(11); > + /* child shouldn't go beyond here */ > + } > + > + /* send SIGUSR1 to child */ > + kill(pid, SIGUSR1); > + wait(&child_status); > + > +out: > + > + return (WIFEXITED(child_status) && > + WEXITSTATUS(child_status) == 11); > +} > + > +int execute_shadow_stack_tests(void) > +{ > + int ret = 0; > + unsigned long test_count = 0; > + unsigned long shstk_status = 0; > + > + printf("Executing RISC-V shadow stack self tests\n"); > + > + ret = my_syscall5(__NR_prctl, PR_GET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, &shstk_status, 0, 0, 0); > + > + if (ret != 0) > + ksft_exit_skip("Get shadow stack status failed with %d\n", ret); > + > + /* > + * If we are here that means get shadow stack status succeeded and > + * thus shadow stack support is baked in the kernel. > + */ > + while (test_count < ARRAY_SIZE(shstk_tests)) { > + ksft_test_result((*shstk_tests[test_count].t_func)(test_count, NULL), > + shstk_tests[test_count].name); > + test_count++; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +#pragma GCC pop_options > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/shadowstack.h b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/shadowstack.h > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..b43e74136a26 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/cfi/shadowstack.h > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > + > +#ifndef SELFTEST_SHADOWSTACK_TEST_H > +#define SELFTEST_SHADOWSTACK_TEST_H > +#include > +#include > + > +/* > + * a cfi test returns true for success or false for fail > + * takes a number for test number to index into array and void pointer. > + */ > +typedef bool (*shstk_test_func)(unsigned long test_num, void *); > + > +struct shadow_stack_tests { > + char *name; > + shstk_test_func t_func; > +}; > + > +bool shadow_stack_fork_test(unsigned long test_num, void *ctx); > +bool shadow_stack_map_test(unsigned long test_num, void *ctx); > +bool shadow_stack_protection_test(unsigned long test_num, void *ctx); > +bool shadow_stack_gup_tests(unsigned long test_num, void *ctx); > +bool shadow_stack_signal_test(unsigned long test_num, void *ctx); > + > +static struct shadow_stack_tests shstk_tests[] = { > + { "shstk fork test\n", shadow_stack_fork_test }, > + { "map shadow stack syscall\n", shadow_stack_map_test }, > + { "shadow stack gup tests\n", shadow_stack_gup_tests }, > + { "shadow stack signal tests\n", shadow_stack_signal_test}, > + { "memory protections of shadow stack memory\n", shadow_stack_protection_test } > +}; > + > +#define RISCV_SHADOW_STACK_TESTS ARRAY_SIZE(shstk_tests) > + > +int execute_shadow_stack_tests(void); > + > +#endif > thanks, -- Shuah