Re: [PATCH v9 23/42] Documentation/x86: Add CET shadow stack description

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 9:43 AM szabolcs.nagy@xxxxxxx
<szabolcs.nagy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The 06/22/2023 08:26, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 2:28 AM szabolcs.nagy@xxxxxxx
> > <szabolcs.nagy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The 06/21/2023 18:54, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2023-06-21 at 12:36 +0100, szabolcs.nagy@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > The 06/20/2023 19:34, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > > > > > > > I actually did a POC for this, but rejected it. The problem is,
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > there is a shadow stack overflow at that point then the kernel
> > > > > > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > push the shadow stack token to the old stack. And shadow stack
> > > > > > > > > > overflow
> > > > > > > > is exactly the alt shadow stack use case. So it doesn't really
> > > > > > > > > > solve
> > > > > > > > the problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the restore token in the alt shstk case does not regress anything
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > makes some use-cases work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > alt shadow stack is important if code tries to jump in and out of
> > > > > > signal handlers (dosemu does this with swapcontext) and for that a
> > > > > > restore token is needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > alt shadow stack is important if the original shstk did not
> > > > > > overflow
> > > > > > but the signal handler would overflow it (small thread stack, huge
> > > > > > sigaltstack case).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > alt shadow stack is also important for crash reporting on shstk
> > > > > > overflow even if longjmp does not work then. longjmp to a
> > > > > > makecontext
> > > > > > stack would still work and longjmp back to the original stack can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > made to mostly work by an altshstk option to overwrite the top
> > > > > > entry
> > > > > > with a restore token on overflow (this can break unwinding though).
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There was previously a request to create an alt shadow stack for the
> > > > purpose of handling shadow stack overflow. So you are now suggesting to
> > > > to exclude that and instead target a different use case for alt shadow
> > > > stack?
> > >
> > > that is not what i said.
> > >
> > > > But I'm not sure how much we should change the ABI at this point since
> > > > we are constrained by existing userspace. If you read the history, we
> > > > may end up needing to deprecate the whole elf bit for this and other
> > > > reasons.
> > >
> > > i'm not against deprecating the elf bit, but i think binary
> > > marking will be difficult for this kind of feature no matter what
> > > (code may be incompatible for complex runtime dependent reasons).
> > >
> > > > So should we struggle to find a way to grow the existing ABI without
> > > > disturbing the existing userspace? Or should we start with something,
> > > > finally, and see where we need to grow and maybe get a chance at a
> > > > fresh start to grow it?
> > > >
> > > > Like, maybe 3 people will show up saying "hey, I *really* need to use
> > > > shadow stack and longjmp from a ucontext stack", and no one says
> > > > anything about shadow stack overflow. Then we know what to do. And
> > > > maybe dosemu decides it doesn't need to implement shadow stack (highly
> > > > likely I would think). Now that I think about it, AFAIU SS_AUTODISARM
> > > > was created for dosemu, and the alt shadow stack patch adopted this
> > > > behavior. So it's speculation that there is even a problem in that
> > > > scenario.
> > > >
> > > > Or maybe people just enable WRSS for longjmp() and directly jump back
> > > > to the setjmp() point. Do most people want fast setjmp/longjmp() at the
> > > > cost of a little security?
> > > >
> > > > Even if, with enough discussion, we could optimize for all
> > > > hypotheticals without real user feedback, I don't see how it helps
> > > > users to hold shadow stack. So I think we should move forward with the
> > > > current ABI.
> > >
> > > you may not get a second chance to fix a security feature.
> > > it will be just disabled if it causes problems.
> >
> > *I* would use altshadowstack.
> >
> > I run a production system (that cares about correctness *and*
> > performance, but that's not really relevant here -- SHSTK ought to be
> > fast).  And, if it crashes, I want to know why.  So I handle SIGSEGV,
> > etc so I have good logs if it crashes.  And I want those same logs if
> > I overflow the stack.
> >
> > That being said, I have no need for longjmp or siglongjmp for this.  I
> > use exit(2) to escape.
>
> the same crash handler that prints a log on shstk overflow should
> work when a different cause of SIGSEGV is recoverable via longjmp.
> to me this means that alt shstk must work with longjmp at least in
> the non-shstk overflow case (which can be declared non-recoverable).

Sure, but how many SIGSEGV handlers would use altshadowstack and
*also, in the same handler* ever resume?  Not mine.  Obviously I'm
only one sample.

>
> > For what it's worth, setjmp/longjmp is a bad API.  The actual pattern
> > that ought to work well (and that could be supported well by fancy
> > compilers and non-C languages, as I understand it) is more like a
> > function call that has two ways out.  Like this (pseudo-C):
> >
> > void function(struct better_jmp_buf &buf, args...)
> > {
> >    ...
> >        if (condition)
> >           better_long_jump(buf);  // long jumps out!
> >        // could also pass buf to another function
> >    ...
> >        // could also return normally
> > }
> >
> > better_call_with_jmp_buf(function, args);
> >
> > *This* could support altshadowstack just fine.  And many users might
> > be okay with the understanding that, if altshadowstack is on, you have
> > to use a better long jump to get out (or a normal sigreturn or _exit).
>
> i don't understand why this would work fine when longjmp does not.
> how does the shstk switch happen?

Ugh, I think this may have some issues given how the ISA works.  Sigh.

I was imagining that better_call_with_jmp_buf would push a restore
token on the shadow stack, then call the passed-in function, then, on
a successful return, INCSSP over the token and continue on.
better_long_jump() would RSTORSSP to the saved token.

But I'm not sure how to write the token without WRUSS.

What *could* be done, which would be nasty and
sigaltshadowstack-specific, is to have a jump out of a signal handler
provide a pointer to the signal frame (siginfo_t or ucontext pointer),
and the kernel would assist it in switching the shadow stack back.
Eww.

--Andy

>
> > No one is getting an altshadowstack signal handler without code
> > changes.
>
> assuming the same component is doing the alt shstk setup as the
> longjmp.
>
> > siglongjmp() could support altshadowstack with help from the kernel,
> > but we probably don't want to go there.
>
> what kind of help? maybe we need that help..
>
> e.g. if the signal frame token is detected by longjmp on
> the shstk then doing an rt_sigreturn with the right signal
> frame context allows longjmp to continue unwinding the shstk.
> however kernel sigcontext layout can change so userspace may
> not know it so longjmp needs a helper, but only in the jump
> across signal frame case.
>
> (this is a different design than what i proposed earlier,
> it also makes longjmp from alt shstk work without wrss,
> the downside is that longjmp across makecontext needs a
> separate solution then which implies that all shstk needs
> a detectable token at the end of the shstk.. so again
> something that we have to get right now and cannot add
> later.)