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

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On Sep 2, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Yu, Yu-cheng <yu-cheng.yu@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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?