linux_dsm_epyc7002/include/linux/pkeys.h

44 lines
877 B
C
Raw Normal View History

#ifndef _LINUX_PKEYS_H
#define _LINUX_PKEYS_H
#include <linux/mm_types.h>
#include <asm/mmu_context.h>
#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS
#include <asm/pkeys.h>
#else /* ! CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS */
#define arch_max_pkey() (1)
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>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
#define execute_only_pkey(mm) (0)
#define arch_override_mprotect_pkey(vma, prot, pkey) (0)
#define PKEY_DEDICATED_EXECUTE_ONLY 0
#define ARCH_VM_PKEY_FLAGS 0
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>
2016-07-29 23:30:15 +07:00
static inline bool mm_pkey_is_allocated(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
{
return (pkey == 0);
}
static inline int mm_pkey_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
return -1;
}
static inline int mm_pkey_free(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
{
return -EINVAL;
}
static inline int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey,
unsigned long init_val)
{
return 0;
}
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>
2016-07-29 23:30:21 +07:00
static inline void copy_init_pkru_to_fpregs(void)
{
}
#endif /* ! CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS */
#endif /* _LINUX_PKEYS_H */