lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[RFC PATCH v7 2/3] selftests/x86: sysret_rip: Add more syscall tests with respect to `%rcx` and `%r11`
Date
From: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>

Test that:

- REGS_SAVED: "syscall" in a FRED system doesn't clobber %rcx and
%r11.

- REGS_SYSRET: "syscall" in a non-FRED system sets %rcx=%rip and
%r11=%rflags.

Test them out with trivial system calls like __NR_getppid and friends
which are extremely likely to return with SYSRET on an IDT system.

Goals of this test:

- Ensure that the syscall behavior is consistent. It must be either
always REGS_SAVED or always REGS_SYSRET. Not a mix of them.

- The kernel doesn't leak its internal data when returning to
userspace.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/25b96960-a07e-a952-5c23-786b55054126@zytor.com
Co-developed-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c
index ef3f492d95f6f2a1..d688cb9d5ac919eb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/sysret_rip.c
@@ -258,8 +258,24 @@ static void test_syscall_fallthrough_to(unsigned long ip)
printf("[OK]\tWe survived\n");
}

+/*
+ * Ensure that various system calls are consistent.
+ * We must not get a mix of REGS_SAVED and REGS_SYSRET.
+ */
+static void test_syscall_rcx_r11_consistent(void)
+{
+ do_syscall(__NR_getpid, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
+ do_syscall(__NR_gettid, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
+ do_syscall(__NR_getppid, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
+}
+
int main()
{
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < 32; i++)
+ test_syscall_rcx_r11_consistent();
+
/*
* When the kernel returns from a slow-path syscall, it will
* detect whether SYSRET is appropriate. If it incorrectly
@@ -267,7 +283,7 @@ int main()
* it'll crash on Intel CPUs.
*/
sethandler(SIGUSR1, sigusr1, 0);
- for (int i = 47; i < 64; i++)
+ for (i = 47; i < 64; i++)
test_sigreturn_to(1UL<<i);

clearhandler(SIGUSR1);
@@ -278,7 +294,7 @@ int main()
test_syscall_fallthrough_to((1UL << 47) - 2*PAGE_SIZE);

/* These are the interesting cases. */
- for (int i = 47; i < 64; i++) {
+ for (i = 47; i < 64; i++) {
test_syscall_fallthrough_to((1UL<<i) - PAGE_SIZE);
test_syscall_fallthrough_to(1UL<<i);
}
--
Ammar Faizi
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:56    [W:0.253 / U:2.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site