[PATCH v3] selftests/lam: Test get_user() LAM pointer handling

Maciej Wieczor-Retman posted 1 patch 1 day, 17 hours ago
tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 110 insertions(+)
[PATCH v3] selftests/lam: Test get_user() LAM pointer handling
Posted by Maciej Wieczor-Retman 1 day, 17 hours ago
Recent change in how get_user() handles pointers [1] has a specific case
for LAM. It assigns a different bitmask that's later used to check
whether a pointer comes from userland in get_user().

While currently commented out (until LASS [2] is merged into the kernel)
it's worth making changes to the LAM selftest ahead of time.

Add test case to LAM that utilizes a ioctl (FIOASYNC) syscall which uses
get_user() in its implementation. Execute the syscall with differently
tagged pointers to verify that valid user pointers are passing through
and invalid kernel/non-canonical pointers are not.

Code was tested on a Sierra Forest Xeon machine that's LAM capable. The
test was ran without issues with both the LAM lines from [1] untouched
and commented out. The test was also ran without issues with LAM_SUP
both enabled and disabled.

4/5 level pagetables code paths were also successfully tested in Simics
on a 5-level capable machine.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241024013214.129639-1-torvalds@linux-foundation.org/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240710160655.3402786-1-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com/

Signed-off-by: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com>
---
Changelog v3:
- mmap the pointer passed to get_user to high address if 5 level paging
  is enabled and to low address if 4 level paging is enabled.

Changelog v2:
- Use mmap with HIGH_ADDR to check if we're in 5 or 4 level pagetables.

 tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
index 0ea4f6813930..616a523c3262 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include <string.h>
 #include <sys/syscall.h>
+#include <sys/ioctl.h>
 #include <time.h>
 #include <signal.h>
 #include <setjmp.h>
@@ -43,7 +44,15 @@
 #define FUNC_INHERITE           0x20
 #define FUNC_PASID              0x40
 
+/* get_user() pointer test cases */
+#define GET_USER_USER           0
+#define GET_USER_KERNEL_TOP     1
+#define GET_USER_KERNEL_BOT     2
+#define GET_USER_KERNEL         3
+
 #define TEST_MASK               0x7f
+#define L5_SIGN_EXT_MASK        (0xFFUL << 56)
+#define L4_SIGN_EXT_MASK        (0x1FFFFUL << 47)
 
 #define LOW_ADDR                (0x1UL << 30)
 #define HIGH_ADDR               (0x3UL << 48)
@@ -370,6 +379,80 @@ static int handle_syscall(struct testcases *test)
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int get_user_syscall(struct testcases *test)
+{
+	uint64_t ptr_address, bitmask;
+	void *p, *ptr;
+	int ret = 0;
+	int fd;
+
+	p = mmap((void *)HIGH_ADDR, 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+		 MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0);
+
+	if (p == MAP_FAILED) {
+		bitmask = L4_SIGN_EXT_MASK;
+		ptr_address = LOW_ADDR;
+
+	} else {
+		bitmask = L5_SIGN_EXT_MASK;
+		ptr_address = HIGH_ADDR;
+	}
+
+	munmap(p, 1);
+
+	ptr = mmap((void *)ptr_address, 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+		   MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0);
+
+	if (ptr == MAP_FAILED) {
+		perror("failed to map byte to pass into get_user");
+		return 1;
+	}
+
+	if (test->lam != 0) {
+		if (set_lam(test->lam) != 0) {
+			ret = 2;
+			goto error;
+		}
+	}
+
+	fd = memfd_create("lam_ioctl", 0);
+	if (fd == -1) {
+		munmap(ptr, 1);
+		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+	}
+
+	switch (test->later) {
+	case GET_USER_USER:
+		/* Control group - properly tagger user pointer */
+		ptr = (void *)set_metadata((uint64_t)ptr, test->lam);
+		break;
+	case GET_USER_KERNEL_TOP:
+		/* Kernel address with top bit cleared */
+		bitmask &= (bitmask >> 1);
+		ptr = (void *)((uint64_t)ptr | bitmask);
+		break;
+	case GET_USER_KERNEL_BOT:
+		/* Kernel address with bottom sign-extension bit cleared */
+		bitmask &= (bitmask << 1);
+		ptr = (void *)((uint64_t)ptr | bitmask);
+		break;
+	case GET_USER_KERNEL:
+		/* Try to pass a kernel address */
+		ptr = (void *)((uint64_t)ptr | bitmask);
+		break;
+	default:
+		printf("Invalid test case value passed!\n");
+		break;
+	}
+
+	if (ioctl(fd, FIOASYNC, ptr) != 0)
+		ret = 1;
+
+error:
+	munmap(ptr, 1);
+	return ret;
+}
+
 int sys_uring_setup(unsigned int entries, struct io_uring_params *p)
 {
 	return (int)syscall(__NR_io_uring_setup, entries, p);
@@ -883,6 +966,33 @@ static struct testcases syscall_cases[] = {
 		.test_func = handle_syscall,
 		.msg = "SYSCALL:[Negative] Disable LAM. Dereferencing pointer with metadata.\n",
 	},
+	{
+		.later = GET_USER_USER,
+		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
+		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
+		.msg = "GET_USER: get_user() and pass a properly tagged user pointer.\n",
+	},
+	{
+		.later = GET_USER_KERNEL_TOP,
+		.expected = 1,
+		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
+		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
+		.msg = "GET_USER:[Negative] get_user() with a kernel pointer and the top bit cleared.\n",
+	},
+	{
+		.later = GET_USER_KERNEL_BOT,
+		.expected = 1,
+		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
+		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
+		.msg = "GET_USER:[Negative] get_user() with a kernel pointer and the bottom sign-extension bit cleared.\n",
+	},
+	{
+		.later = GET_USER_KERNEL,
+		.expected = 1,
+		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
+		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
+		.msg = "GET_USER:[Negative] get_user() and pass a kernel pointer.\n",
+	},
 };
 
 static struct testcases mmap_cases[] = {
-- 
2.46.2
Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/lam: Test get_user() LAM pointer handling
Posted by Kirill A. Shutemov 1 day, 17 hours ago
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 09:55:20AM +0100, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
> Recent change in how get_user() handles pointers [1] has a specific case
> for LAM. It assigns a different bitmask that's later used to check
> whether a pointer comes from userland in get_user().
> 
> While currently commented out (until LASS [2] is merged into the kernel)
> it's worth making changes to the LAM selftest ahead of time.
> 
> Add test case to LAM that utilizes a ioctl (FIOASYNC) syscall which uses
> get_user() in its implementation. Execute the syscall with differently
> tagged pointers to verify that valid user pointers are passing through
> and invalid kernel/non-canonical pointers are not.
> 
> Code was tested on a Sierra Forest Xeon machine that's LAM capable. The
> test was ran without issues with both the LAM lines from [1] untouched
> and commented out. The test was also ran without issues with LAM_SUP
> both enabled and disabled.
> 
> 4/5 level pagetables code paths were also successfully tested in Simics
> on a 5-level capable machine.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241024013214.129639-1-torvalds@linux-foundation.org/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240710160655.3402786-1-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com>
> ---
> Changelog v3:
> - mmap the pointer passed to get_user to high address if 5 level paging
>   is enabled and to low address if 4 level paging is enabled.
> 
> Changelog v2:
> - Use mmap with HIGH_ADDR to check if we're in 5 or 4 level pagetables.
> 
>  tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 110 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
> index 0ea4f6813930..616a523c3262 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>  #include <stdlib.h>
>  #include <string.h>
>  #include <sys/syscall.h>
> +#include <sys/ioctl.h>
>  #include <time.h>
>  #include <signal.h>
>  #include <setjmp.h>
> @@ -43,7 +44,15 @@
>  #define FUNC_INHERITE           0x20
>  #define FUNC_PASID              0x40
>  
> +/* get_user() pointer test cases */
> +#define GET_USER_USER           0
> +#define GET_USER_KERNEL_TOP     1
> +#define GET_USER_KERNEL_BOT     2
> +#define GET_USER_KERNEL         3
> +
>  #define TEST_MASK               0x7f
> +#define L5_SIGN_EXT_MASK        (0xFFUL << 56)
> +#define L4_SIGN_EXT_MASK        (0x1FFFFUL << 47)
>  
>  #define LOW_ADDR                (0x1UL << 30)
>  #define HIGH_ADDR               (0x3UL << 48)
> @@ -370,6 +379,80 @@ static int handle_syscall(struct testcases *test)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static int get_user_syscall(struct testcases *test)
> +{
> +	uint64_t ptr_address, bitmask;
> +	void *p, *ptr;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +	int fd;
> +
> +	p = mmap((void *)HIGH_ADDR, 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> +		 MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0);
> +
> +	if (p == MAP_FAILED) {
> +		bitmask = L4_SIGN_EXT_MASK;
> +		ptr_address = LOW_ADDR;
> +
> +	} else {
> +		bitmask = L5_SIGN_EXT_MASK;
> +		ptr_address = HIGH_ADDR;
> +	}

Hm. Why not use cpu_has_lam() for the paging check?

> +
> +	munmap(p, 1);
> +
> +	ptr = mmap((void *)ptr_address, 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> +		   MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0);

Mapping sizer of 1 byte looks odd. It is not wrong, but looks strange.
Maybe use PAGE_SIZE instead?

> +
> +	if (ptr == MAP_FAILED) {
> +		perror("failed to map byte to pass into get_user");
> +		return 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (test->lam != 0) {

It is always true, right?

> +		if (set_lam(test->lam) != 0) {
> +			ret = 2;
> +			goto error;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	fd = memfd_create("lam_ioctl", 0);
> +	if (fd == -1) {
> +		munmap(ptr, 1);
> +		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> +	}
> +
> +	switch (test->later) {
> +	case GET_USER_USER:
> +		/* Control group - properly tagger user pointer */
> +		ptr = (void *)set_metadata((uint64_t)ptr, test->lam);
> +		break;
> +	case GET_USER_KERNEL_TOP:
> +		/* Kernel address with top bit cleared */
> +		bitmask &= (bitmask >> 1);
> +		ptr = (void *)((uint64_t)ptr | bitmask);
> +		break;
> +	case GET_USER_KERNEL_BOT:
> +		/* Kernel address with bottom sign-extension bit cleared */
> +		bitmask &= (bitmask << 1);
> +		ptr = (void *)((uint64_t)ptr | bitmask);
> +		break;
> +	case GET_USER_KERNEL:
> +		/* Try to pass a kernel address */
> +		ptr = (void *)((uint64_t)ptr | bitmask);
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		printf("Invalid test case value passed!\n");
> +		break;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (ioctl(fd, FIOASYNC, ptr) != 0)
> +		ret = 1;
> +
> +error:
> +	munmap(ptr, 1);

	close(fd);

> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  int sys_uring_setup(unsigned int entries, struct io_uring_params *p)
>  {
>  	return (int)syscall(__NR_io_uring_setup, entries, p);
> @@ -883,6 +966,33 @@ static struct testcases syscall_cases[] = {
>  		.test_func = handle_syscall,
>  		.msg = "SYSCALL:[Negative] Disable LAM. Dereferencing pointer with metadata.\n",
>  	},
> +	{
> +		.later = GET_USER_USER,
> +		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
> +		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
> +		.msg = "GET_USER: get_user() and pass a properly tagged user pointer.\n",
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.later = GET_USER_KERNEL_TOP,
> +		.expected = 1,
> +		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
> +		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
> +		.msg = "GET_USER:[Negative] get_user() with a kernel pointer and the top bit cleared.\n",
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.later = GET_USER_KERNEL_BOT,
> +		.expected = 1,
> +		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
> +		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
> +		.msg = "GET_USER:[Negative] get_user() with a kernel pointer and the bottom sign-extension bit cleared.\n",
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.later = GET_USER_KERNEL,
> +		.expected = 1,
> +		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
> +		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
> +		.msg = "GET_USER:[Negative] get_user() and pass a kernel pointer.\n",
> +	},
>  };
>  
>  static struct testcases mmap_cases[] = {
> -- 
> 2.46.2
> 

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/lam: Test get_user() LAM pointer handling
Posted by Maciej Wieczor-Retman 1 day, 15 hours ago
On 2024-11-22 at 11:13:44 +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 09:55:20AM +0100, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>> Recent change in how get_user() handles pointers [1] has a specific case
>> for LAM. It assigns a different bitmask that's later used to check
>> whether a pointer comes from userland in get_user().
>> 
>> While currently commented out (until LASS [2] is merged into the kernel)
>> it's worth making changes to the LAM selftest ahead of time.
>> 
>> Add test case to LAM that utilizes a ioctl (FIOASYNC) syscall which uses
>> get_user() in its implementation. Execute the syscall with differently
>> tagged pointers to verify that valid user pointers are passing through
>> and invalid kernel/non-canonical pointers are not.
>> 
>> Code was tested on a Sierra Forest Xeon machine that's LAM capable. The
>> test was ran without issues with both the LAM lines from [1] untouched
>> and commented out. The test was also ran without issues with LAM_SUP
>> both enabled and disabled.
>> 
>> 4/5 level pagetables code paths were also successfully tested in Simics
>> on a 5-level capable machine.
>> 
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241024013214.129639-1-torvalds@linux-foundation.org/
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240710160655.3402786-1-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com/
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com>
>> ---
>> Changelog v3:
>> - mmap the pointer passed to get_user to high address if 5 level paging
>>   is enabled and to low address if 4 level paging is enabled.
>> 
>> Changelog v2:
>> - Use mmap with HIGH_ADDR to check if we're in 5 or 4 level pagetables.
>> 
>>  tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 110 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
>> index 0ea4f6813930..616a523c3262 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>>  #include <stdlib.h>
>>  #include <string.h>
>>  #include <sys/syscall.h>
>> +#include <sys/ioctl.h>
>>  #include <time.h>
>>  #include <signal.h>
>>  #include <setjmp.h>
>> @@ -43,7 +44,15 @@
>>  #define FUNC_INHERITE           0x20
>>  #define FUNC_PASID              0x40
>>  
>> +/* get_user() pointer test cases */
>> +#define GET_USER_USER           0
>> +#define GET_USER_KERNEL_TOP     1
>> +#define GET_USER_KERNEL_BOT     2
>> +#define GET_USER_KERNEL         3
>> +
>>  #define TEST_MASK               0x7f
>> +#define L5_SIGN_EXT_MASK        (0xFFUL << 56)
>> +#define L4_SIGN_EXT_MASK        (0x1FFFFUL << 47)
>>  
>>  #define LOW_ADDR                (0x1UL << 30)
>>  #define HIGH_ADDR               (0x3UL << 48)
>> @@ -370,6 +379,80 @@ static int handle_syscall(struct testcases *test)
>>  	return ret;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int get_user_syscall(struct testcases *test)
>> +{
>> +	uint64_t ptr_address, bitmask;
>> +	void *p, *ptr;
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +	int fd;
>> +
>> +	p = mmap((void *)HIGH_ADDR, 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
>> +		 MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0);
>> +
>> +	if (p == MAP_FAILED) {
>> +		bitmask = L4_SIGN_EXT_MASK;
>> +		ptr_address = LOW_ADDR;
>> +
>> +	} else {
>> +		bitmask = L5_SIGN_EXT_MASK;
>> +		ptr_address = HIGH_ADDR;
>> +	}
>
>Hm. Why not use cpu_has_lam() for the paging check?

cpu_has_lam() seems to return what the cpuid reports about LAM being available
on the system.

The problem I was trying to solve here was to determine what pagetable level is
used currently so I can setup the bitmask to create fake kernel pointers below.
Can cpu_has_lam() achieve that? I didn't see any correlation between the cpuid
and active paging mode.

>
>> +
>> +	munmap(p, 1);
>> +
>> +	ptr = mmap((void *)ptr_address, 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
>> +		   MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0);
>
>Mapping sizer of 1 byte looks odd. It is not wrong, but looks strange.
>Maybe use PAGE_SIZE instead?

Okay, I'll try that.

>
>> +
>> +	if (ptr == MAP_FAILED) {
>> +		perror("failed to map byte to pass into get_user");
>> +		return 1;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (test->lam != 0) {
>
>It is always true, right?

Right, I forgot to remove it.

>
>> +		if (set_lam(test->lam) != 0) {
>> +			ret = 2;
>> +			goto error;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	fd = memfd_create("lam_ioctl", 0);
>> +	if (fd == -1) {
>> +		munmap(ptr, 1);
>> +		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	switch (test->later) {
>> +	case GET_USER_USER:
>> +		/* Control group - properly tagger user pointer */
>> +		ptr = (void *)set_metadata((uint64_t)ptr, test->lam);
>> +		break;
>> +	case GET_USER_KERNEL_TOP:
>> +		/* Kernel address with top bit cleared */
>> +		bitmask &= (bitmask >> 1);
>> +		ptr = (void *)((uint64_t)ptr | bitmask);
>> +		break;
>> +	case GET_USER_KERNEL_BOT:
>> +		/* Kernel address with bottom sign-extension bit cleared */
>> +		bitmask &= (bitmask << 1);
>> +		ptr = (void *)((uint64_t)ptr | bitmask);
>> +		break;
>> +	case GET_USER_KERNEL:
>> +		/* Try to pass a kernel address */
>> +		ptr = (void *)((uint64_t)ptr | bitmask);
>> +		break;
>> +	default:
>> +		printf("Invalid test case value passed!\n");
>> +		break;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (ioctl(fd, FIOASYNC, ptr) != 0)
>> +		ret = 1;
>> +
>> +error:
>> +	munmap(ptr, 1);
>
>	close(fd);

Thanks :)

>
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>>  int sys_uring_setup(unsigned int entries, struct io_uring_params *p)
>>  {
>>  	return (int)syscall(__NR_io_uring_setup, entries, p);
>> @@ -883,6 +966,33 @@ static struct testcases syscall_cases[] = {
>>  		.test_func = handle_syscall,
>>  		.msg = "SYSCALL:[Negative] Disable LAM. Dereferencing pointer with metadata.\n",
>>  	},
>> +	{
>> +		.later = GET_USER_USER,
>> +		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
>> +		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
>> +		.msg = "GET_USER: get_user() and pass a properly tagged user pointer.\n",
>> +	},
>> +	{
>> +		.later = GET_USER_KERNEL_TOP,
>> +		.expected = 1,
>> +		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
>> +		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
>> +		.msg = "GET_USER:[Negative] get_user() with a kernel pointer and the top bit cleared.\n",
>> +	},
>> +	{
>> +		.later = GET_USER_KERNEL_BOT,
>> +		.expected = 1,
>> +		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
>> +		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
>> +		.msg = "GET_USER:[Negative] get_user() with a kernel pointer and the bottom sign-extension bit cleared.\n",
>> +	},
>> +	{
>> +		.later = GET_USER_KERNEL,
>> +		.expected = 1,
>> +		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
>> +		.test_func = get_user_syscall,
>> +		.msg = "GET_USER:[Negative] get_user() and pass a kernel pointer.\n",
>> +	},
>>  };
>>  
>>  static struct testcases mmap_cases[] = {
>> -- 
>> 2.46.2
>> 
>
>-- 
>  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov

-- 
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman