From: David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
To: mhiramat@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/x86: Add shadow stack uprobe CALL test
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2026 14:31:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260622183109.1137245-2-dwindsor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260622183109.1137245-1-dwindsor@gmail.com>
Add coverage for entry uprobes installed on CALL instructions while user
shadow stack is enabled. The test puts an entry uprobe on a helper whose
first instruction is a relative CALL, then verifies that the call/return
sequence completes without SIGSEGV.
This catches regressions where x86 uprobe CALL emulation updates the
regular user stack but leaves the CET shadow stack stale.
Signed-off-by: David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 86 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c
index 21af54d5f4ea..3d6ca33edba4 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_shadow_stack.c
@@ -873,6 +873,86 @@ static int test_uretprobe(void)
return err;
}
+/* Keep the CALL first so the function address is exactly the probed CALL. */
+extern void uprobe_call_trigger(void);
+asm (".pushsection .text\n"
+ ".global uprobe_call_target\n"
+ ".type uprobe_call_target, @function\n"
+ "uprobe_call_target:\n"
+ " ret\n"
+ ".size uprobe_call_target, .-uprobe_call_target\n"
+
+ ".global uprobe_call_trigger\n"
+ ".type uprobe_call_trigger, @function\n"
+ "uprobe_call_trigger:\n"
+ " call uprobe_call_target\n"
+ " ret\n"
+ ".size uprobe_call_trigger, .-uprobe_call_trigger\n"
+ ".popsection\n"
+);
+
+/* If CALL emulation misses the shadow stack update, this exits via SIGSEGV. */
+static int test_uprobe_call(void)
+{
+ const size_t attr_sz = sizeof(struct perf_event_attr);
+ const char *file = "/proc/self/exe";
+ int fd = -1, type, err = 1;
+ struct perf_event_attr attr;
+ struct sigaction sa = {};
+ ssize_t offset;
+
+ type = determine_uprobe_perf_type();
+ if (type < 0) {
+ if (type == -ENOENT)
+ printf("[SKIP]\tUprobe on CALL test, uprobes are not available\n");
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ offset = get_uprobe_offset(uprobe_call_trigger);
+ if (offset < 0)
+ return 1;
+
+ sa.sa_sigaction = segv_gp_handler;
+ sa.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO;
+ if (sigaction(SIGSEGV, &sa, NULL))
+ return 1;
+
+ /* Setup entry uprobe through perf event interface. */
+ memset(&attr, 0, attr_sz);
+ attr.size = attr_sz;
+ attr.type = type;
+ attr.config = 0;
+ attr.config1 = (__u64)(unsigned long)file;
+ attr.config2 = offset;
+
+ fd = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, &attr, 0 /* pid */, -1 /* cpu */,
+ -1 /* group_fd */, PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC);
+ if (fd < 0)
+ goto out;
+
+ if (sigsetjmp(jmp_buffer, 1))
+ goto out;
+
+ if (ARCH_PRCTL(ARCH_SHSTK_ENABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK))
+ goto out;
+
+ /*
+ * This either segfaults and goes through sigsetjmp above
+ * or succeeds and we're good.
+ */
+ uprobe_call_trigger();
+
+ printf("[OK]\tUprobe on CALL test\n");
+ err = 0;
+
+out:
+ ARCH_PRCTL(ARCH_SHSTK_DISABLE, ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK);
+ signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_DFL);
+ if (fd >= 0)
+ close(fd);
+ return err;
+}
+
void segv_handler_ptrace(int signum, siginfo_t *si, void *uc)
{
/* The SSP adjustment caused a segfault. */
@@ -1071,6 +1151,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
goto out;
}
+ if (test_uprobe_call()) {
+ ret = 1;
+ printf("[FAIL]\tuprobe on CALL test\n");
+ goto out;
+ }
+
return ret;
out:
--
2.43.0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-22 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-22 18:31 [PATCH 1/2] x86/uprobes: Keep shadow stack in sync for emulated CALLs David Windsor
2026-06-22 18:31 ` David Windsor [this message]
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=20260622183109.1137245-2-dwindsor@gmail.com \
--to=dwindsor@gmail.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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