On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 04:20:12PM +0000, Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com wrote:
The 11/15/2023 12:36, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 12:45:45AM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
On Tue, 2023-11-14 at 20:05 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
if (size < 8)return (unsigned long)ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
What is the intention here? The check in map_shadow_stack is to leave space for the token, but here there is no token.
It was to ensure that there is sufficient space for at least one entry on the stack.
end marker token (0) needs it i guess.
x86 doesn't currently have end markers. Actually, that's a point - should we add a flag for specifying the use of end markers here? There's code in my map_shadow_stack() implementation for arm64 which does that.
otherwise 0 size would be fine: the child may not execute a call instruction at all.
Well, a size of specifically zero will result in a fallback to implicit allocation/sizing of the stack as things stand so this is specifically the case where a size has been specified but is smaller than a single entry.
I think for CLONE_VM we should not require a non-zero size. Speaking of CLONE_VM we should probably be clear on what the expected behavior is for situations when a new shadow stack is not usually allocated. !CLONE_VM || CLONE_VFORK will use the existing shadow stack. Should we require shadow_stack_size be zero in this case, or just ignore it? I'd lean towards requiring it to be zero so userspace doesn't pass garbage in that we have to accommodate later. What we could possibly need to do around that though, I'm not sure. What do you think?
Yes, requiring it to be zero in that case makes sense I think.
i think the condition is "no specified separate stack for the child (stack==0 || stack==sp)".
CLONE_VFORK does not imply that the existing stack will be used (a stack for the child can be specified, i think both glibc and musl do this in posix_spawn).
That also works as a check I think, though it requires the arch to check for the stack==sp case - I hadn't been aware of the posix_spawn() usage, the above checks Rick suggested just follow the handling for implicit allocation we have currently.