mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: use the correct function type for __arm64_sys_ni_syscall
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 18:25:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190507172512.GA35803@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190503191225.6684-4-samitolvanen@google.com>

On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 12:12:25PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Calling sys_ni_syscall through a syscall_fn_t pointer trips indirect
> call Control-Flow Integrity checking due to a function type
> mismatch. Use SYSCALL_DEFINE0 for __arm64_sys_ni_syscall instead and
> remove the now unnecessary casts.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c   | 14 +++++++++-----
>  arch/arm64/kernel/sys32.c | 12 ++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c
> index b44065fb16160..4f8e8a7237a85 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c
> @@ -47,22 +47,26 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(arm64_personality, unsigned int, personality)
>  	return ksys_personality(personality);
>  }
>  
> +asmlinkage long sys_ni_syscall(void);
> +
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE0(ni_syscall)
> +{
> +	return sys_ni_syscall();
> +}

I strongly think that we cant to fix up the common definition in
kernel/sys_ni.c rather than having a point-hack in arm64. Other
architectures (e.g. x86, s390) will want the same for CFI, and I'd like
to ensure that our approached don't diverge.

I took a quick look, and it looks like it's messy but possible to fix
up the core.

I also suspect that using SYSCALL_DEFINE0() as it currently stands isn't
a great idea, since it'll allow fault injection for unimplemented
syscalls, which sounds dubious to me.

Thanks,
Mark.

> +
>  /*
>   * Wrappers to pass the pt_regs argument.
>   */
>  #define sys_personality		sys_arm64_personality
>  
> -asmlinkage long sys_ni_syscall(const struct pt_regs *);
> -#define __arm64_sys_ni_syscall	sys_ni_syscall
> -
>  #undef __SYSCALL
>  #define __SYSCALL(nr, sym)	asmlinkage long __arm64_##sym(const struct pt_regs *);
>  #include <asm/unistd.h>
>  
>  #undef __SYSCALL
> -#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym)	[nr] = (syscall_fn_t)__arm64_##sym,
> +#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym)	[nr] = __arm64_##sym,
>  
>  const syscall_fn_t sys_call_table[__NR_syscalls] = {
> -	[0 ... __NR_syscalls - 1] = (syscall_fn_t)sys_ni_syscall,
> +	[0 ... __NR_syscalls - 1] = __arm64_sys_ni_syscall,
>  #include <asm/unistd.h>
>  };
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/sys32.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/sys32.c
> index 0f8bcb7de7008..f8f6c26cfd326 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/sys32.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/sys32.c
> @@ -133,17 +133,21 @@ COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE6(aarch32_fallocate, int, fd, int, mode,
>  	return ksys_fallocate(fd, mode, arg_u64(offset), arg_u64(len));
>  }
>  
> -asmlinkage long sys_ni_syscall(const struct pt_regs *);
> -#define __arm64_sys_ni_syscall	sys_ni_syscall
> +asmlinkage long sys_ni_syscall(void);
> +
> +COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE0(ni_syscall)
> +{
> +	return sys_ni_syscall();
> +}
>  
>  #undef __SYSCALL
>  #define __SYSCALL(nr, sym)	asmlinkage long __arm64_##sym(const struct pt_regs *);
>  #include <asm/unistd32.h>
>  
>  #undef __SYSCALL
> -#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym)	[nr] = (syscall_fn_t)__arm64_##sym,
> +#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym)	[nr] = __arm64_##sym,
>  
>  const syscall_fn_t compat_sys_call_table[__NR_compat_syscalls] = {
> -	[0 ... __NR_compat_syscalls - 1] = (syscall_fn_t)sys_ni_syscall,
> +	[0 ... __NR_compat_syscalls - 1] = __arm64_sys_ni_syscall,
>  #include <asm/unistd32.h>
>  };
> -- 
> 2.21.0.1020.gf2820cf01a-goog
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-07 17:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-03 19:12 [PATCH v2 0/3] fix function type mismatches in syscall wrappers Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-03 19:12 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: fix syscall_fn_t type Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-03 19:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: use the correct function type in SYSCALL_DEFINE0 Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-03 19:12 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: use the correct function type for __arm64_sys_ni_syscall Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-07 17:25   ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2019-05-07 18:32     ` Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-15 11:40       ` Will Deacon
2019-05-24 18:35         ` Will Deacon
2019-05-24 21:58           ` Sami Tolvanen

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=20190507172512.GA35803@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®