From: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Cc: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
Subject: [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 06/20] riscv: Implementing "PROT_SHADOWSTACK" on riscv
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 20:53:35 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230213045351.3945824-7-debug@rivosinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230213045351.3945824-1-debug@rivosinc.com>
This patchimplements new mmap protection flag "PROT_SHADOWSTACK" on riscv
Zisslpcfi extension on riscv uses R=0, W=1, X=0 as shadow stack PTE
encoding. This encoding is reserved if Zisslpcfi is not implemented or
backward cfi is not enabled for the respective mode.
Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
---
arch/riscv/include/asm/mman.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h | 1 +
arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 arch/riscv/include/asm/mman.h
diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/mman.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/mman.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9c8499294a60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/mman.h
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+#ifndef __ASM_MMAN_H__
+#define __ASM_MMAN_H__
+
+#include <linux/compiler.h>
+#include <linux/types.h>
+#include <uapi/asm/mman.h>
+
+static inline unsigned long arch_calc_vm_prot_bits(unsigned long prot,
+ unsigned long pkey __always_unused)
+{
+ unsigned long ret = 0;
+
+ ret = (prot & PROT_SHADOWSTACK)?VM_WRITE:0;
+ return ret;
+}
+#define arch_calc_vm_prot_bits(prot, pkey) arch_calc_vm_prot_bits(prot, pkey)
+
+#endif /* ! __ASM_MMAN_H__ */
diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
index 4eba9a98d0e3..74dbe122f2fa 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ extern struct pt_alloc_ops pt_ops __initdata;
#define PAGE_READ_EXEC __pgprot(_PAGE_BASE | _PAGE_READ | _PAGE_EXEC)
#define PAGE_WRITE_EXEC __pgprot(_PAGE_BASE | _PAGE_READ | \
_PAGE_EXEC | _PAGE_WRITE)
+#define PAGE_SHADOWSTACK __pgprot(_PAGE_BASE | _PAGE_WRITE)
#define PAGE_COPY PAGE_READ
#define PAGE_COPY_EXEC PAGE_EXEC
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
index 5d3f2fbeb33c..c3cf6b94c710 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
@@ -18,6 +18,28 @@ static long riscv_sys_mmap(unsigned long addr, unsigned long len,
if (unlikely(offset & (~PAGE_MASK >> page_shift_offset)))
return -EINVAL;
+ /*
+ * If only PROT_WRITE is specified then extend that to PROT_READ
+ * protection_map[VM_WRITE] is now going to select shadow stack encodings.
+ * So specifying PROT_WRITE actually should select protection_map [VM_WRITE | VM_READ]
+ * If user wants to create shadow stack then they should specify PROT_SHADOWSTACK
+ * protection
+ */
+ if (unlikely((prot & PROT_WRITE) && !(prot & PROT_READ)))
+ prot |= PROT_READ;
+
+ /*
+ * PROT_SHADOWSTACK is new protection flag. If specified with other like PROT_WRITE or
+ * PROT_READ PROT_SHADOWSTACK takes precedence. We can do either of following
+ * - ensure no other protection flags are specified along with it and return EINVAL
+ * OR
+ * - ensure we clear other protection flags.
+ * Choosing to follow former, if any other bit is set in prot, we return EINVAL
+ * Other architectures can treat different combinations for PROT_SHADOWSTACK
+ */
+ if (unlikely((prot & PROT_SHADOWSTACK) && (prot & ~PROT_SHADOWSTACK)))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
return ksys_mmap_pgoff(addr, len, prot, flags, fd,
offset >> (PAGE_SHIFT - page_shift_offset));
}
diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
index 478d6763a01a..ba8138c90450 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ static pmd_t __maybe_unused early_dtb_pmd[PTRS_PER_PMD] __initdata __aligned(PAG
static const pgprot_t protection_map[16] = {
[VM_NONE] = PAGE_NONE,
[VM_READ] = PAGE_READ,
- [VM_WRITE] = PAGE_COPY,
+ [VM_WRITE] = PAGE_SHADOWSTACK,
[VM_WRITE | VM_READ] = PAGE_COPY,
[VM_EXEC] = PAGE_EXEC,
[VM_EXEC | VM_READ] = PAGE_READ_EXEC,
--
2.25.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-13 4:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-13 4:53 [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 00/20] riscv control-flow integrity for U mode Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 01/20] sslp stubs: shadow stack and landing pad stubs Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 02/20] riscv: zisslpcfi enumeration Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 03/20] riscv: zisslpcfi extension csr and bit definitions Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 04/20] riscv: kernel enabling user code for shadow stack and landing pad Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 05/20] mmap : Introducing new protection "PROT_SHADOWSTACK" for mmap Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` Deepak Gupta [this message]
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 07/20] elf: ELF header parsing in GNU property for cfi state Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 08/20] riscv: ELF header parsing in GNU property for riscv zisslpcfi Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 09/20] riscv mmu: riscv shadow stack page fault handling Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 10/20] riscv mmu: write protect and shadow stack Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 11/20] mmu: maybe_mkwrite updated to manufacture shadow stack PTEs Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 12:05 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-02-13 14:37 ` Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 14:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-02-13 20:01 ` Deepak Gupta
2023-02-14 12:10 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-02-14 18:27 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 12/20] riscv mm: manufacture shadow stack pte and is vma shadowstack Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 13/20] riscv: illegal instruction handler for cfi violations Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 14/20] riscv: audit mode " Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 15/20] sslp prctl: arch-agnostic prctl for shadow stack and landing pad instr Deepak Gupta
2023-05-25 17:17 ` Mark Brown
2023-06-07 20:22 ` Mark Brown
2023-10-09 21:22 ` Deepak Gupta
2023-10-10 16:17 ` Mark Brown
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 16/20] riscv: Implements sslp prctls Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 17/20] riscv ucontext: adding shadow stack pointer field in ucontext Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 18/20] riscv signal: Save and restore of shadow stack for signal Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 19/20] config: adding two new config for control flow integrity Deepak Gupta
2023-02-13 4:53 ` [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 20/20] riscv: select config for shadow stack and landing pad instr support Deepak Gupta
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=20230213045351.3945824-7-debug@rivosinc.com \
--to=debug@rivosinc.com \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
/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