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

[Jann Horn]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:13 AM 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"?

Yeah, I guess ENODEV might fit reasonably well.