leandrof/linux
1
0
Fork 0
forked from Minki/linux
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
695,697 Commits 2 Branches 0 Tags 5.1 GiB
b1b6f83ac9
Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Andy Lutomirski
e63650840e x86/fpu: Finish excising 'eagerfpu' 
Now that eagerfpu= is gone, remove it from the docs and some
comments.  Also sync the changes to tools/.

Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/cf430dd4481d41280e93ac6cf0def1007a67fc8e.1476740397.git.luto@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
 2016-10-18 09:56:03 +02:00
Dave Hansen
76de993727 x86/pkeys: Allow configuration of init_pkru 
As discussed in the previous patch, there is a reliability
benefit to allowing an init value for the Protection Keys Rights
User register (PKRU) which differs from what the XSAVE hardware
provides.

But, having PKRU be 0 (its init value) provides some nonzero
amount of optimization potential to the hardware.  It can, for
instance, skip writes to the XSAVE buffer when it knows that PKRU
is in its init state.

The cost of losing this optimization is approximately 100 cycles
per context switch for a workload which lightly using XSAVE
state (something not using AVX much).  The overhead comes from a
combinaation of actually manipulating PKRU and the overhead of
pullin in an extra cacheline.

This overhead is not huge, but it's also not something that I
think we should unconditionally inflict on everyone.  So, make it
configurable both at boot-time and from debugfs.

Changes to the debugfs value affect all processes created after
the write to debugfs.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: mgorman@techsingularity.net
Cc: arnd@arndb.de
Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: luto@kernel.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163023.407672D2@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
 2016-09-09 13:02:28 +02:00
Dave Hansen
acd547b298 x86/pkeys: Default to a restrictive init PKRU 
PKRU is the register that lets you disallow writes or all access to a given
protection key.

The XSAVE hardware defines an "init state" of 0 for PKRU: its most
permissive state, allowing access/writes to everything.  Since we start off
all new processes with the init state, we start all processes off with the
most permissive possible PKRU.

This is unfortunate.  If a thread is clone()'d [1] before a program has
time to set PKRU to a restrictive value, that thread will be able to write
to all data, no matter what pkey is set on it.  This weakens any integrity
guarantees that we want pkeys to provide.

To fix this, we define a very restrictive PKRU to override the
XSAVE-provided value when we create a new FPU context.  We choose a value
that only allows access to pkey 0, which is as restrictive as we can
practically make it.

This does not cause any practical problems with applications using
protection keys because we require them to specify initial permissions for
each key when it is allocated, which override the restrictive default.

In the end, this ensures that threads which do not know how to manage their
own pkey rights can not do damage to data which is pkey-protected.

I would have thought this was a pretty contrived scenario, except that I
heard a bug report from an MPX user who was creating threads in some very
early code before main().  It may be crazy, but folks evidently _do_ it.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: mgorman@techsingularity.net
Cc: arnd@arndb.de
Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: luto@kernel.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163021.F3C25D4A@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
 2016-09-09 13:02:28 +02:00
Dave Hansen
e8c24d3a23 x86/pkeys: Allocation/free syscalls 
This patch adds two new system calls:

	int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights)
	int pkey_free(int pkey);

These implement an "allocator" for the protection keys
themselves, which can be thought of as analogous to the allocator
that the kernel has for file descriptors.  The kernel tracks
which numbers are in use, and only allows operations on keys that
are valid.  A key which was not obtained by pkey_alloc() may not,
for instance, be passed to pkey_mprotect().

These system calls are also very important given the kernel's use
of pkeys to implement execute-only support.  These help ensure
that userspace can never assume that it has control of a key
unless it first asks the kernel.  The kernel does not promise to
preserve PKRU (right register) contents except for allocated
pkeys.

The 'init_access_rights' argument to pkey_alloc() specifies the
rights that will be established for the returned pkey.  For
instance:

	pkey = pkey_alloc(flags, PKEY_DENY_WRITE);

will allocate 'pkey', but also sets the bits in PKRU[1] such that
writing to 'pkey' is already denied.

The kernel does not prevent pkey_free() from successfully freeing
in-use pkeys (those still assigned to a memory range by
pkey_mprotect()).  It would be expensive to implement the checks
for this, so we instead say, "Just don't do it" since sane
software will never do it anyway.

Any piece of userspace calling pkey_alloc() needs to be prepared
for it to fail.  Why?  pkey_alloc() returns the same error code
(ENOSPC) when there are no pkeys and when pkeys are unsupported.
They can be unsupported for a whole host of reasons, so apps must
be prepared for this.  Also, libraries or LD_PRELOADs might steal
keys before an application gets access to them.

This allocation mechanism could be implemented in userspace.
Even if we did it in userspace, we would still need additional
user/kernel interfaces to tell userspace which keys are being
used by the kernel internally (such as for execute-only
mappings).  Having the kernel provide this facility completely
removes the need for these additional interfaces, or having an
implementation of this in userspace at all.

Note that we have to make changes to all of the architectures
that do not use mman-common.h because we use the new
PKEY_DENY_ACCESS/WRITE macros in arch-independent code.

1. PKRU is the Protection Key Rights User register.  It is a
   usermode-accessible register that controls whether writes
   and/or access to each individual pkey is allowed or denied.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de
Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: luto@kernel.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163015.444FE75F@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
 2016-09-09 13:02:27 +02:00
Dave Hansen
62b5f7d013 mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support 
Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware.
But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data
accesses and never affect instruction fetches.  That means that
if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via
protection keys, we can still execute from it.

This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that.
If a user calls:

	mmap(..., PROT_EXEC);
or
	mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC);

(note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will
notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory.  It
also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights
(PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and
unwritable.

I haven't found any userspace that does this today.  With this
facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it
eventually.  Userspace _could_ start doing this today.  Any
PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and
would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this
code.  IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime
detection.

This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking
executable memory contents.  This helps thwart attacks which are
attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly.

But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive.
The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal
user register writable from unprivileged userspace.  An attacker
who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the
protection provided by this feature.

The protection key that is used for execute-only support is
permanently dedicated at compile time.  This is fine for now
because there is currently no API to set a protection key other
than this one.

Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire
system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a
process.  That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state',
which can lead to faster context switches.

PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it.  That
means that code doing:

	pkru = rdpkru()
	pkru |= 0x100;
	mmap(..., PROT_EXEC);
	wrpkru(pkru);

could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only
permissions.  To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling
mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be
unstable.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: keescook@google.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
 2016-02-18 19:46:33 +01:00