On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 7:16 PM Zong Li <zong.li@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 3:31 PM Zong Li <zong.li@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 1:17 AM Deepak Gupta <debug@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > zicfiss / zicfilp introduces a new exception to priv isa `software check
> > > exception` with cause code = 18. This patch implements software check
> > > exception.
> > >
> > > Additionally it implements a cfi violation handler which checks for code
> > > in xtval. If xtval=2, it means that sw check exception happened because of
> > > an indirect branch not landing on 4 byte aligned PC or not landing on
> > > `lpad` instruction or label value embedded in `lpad` not matching label
> > > value setup in `x7`. If xtval=3, it means that sw check exception happened
> > > because of mismatch between link register (x1 or x5) and top of shadow
> > > stack (on execution of `sspopchk`).
> > >
> > > In case of cfi violation, SIGSEGV is raised with code=SEGV_CPERR.
> > > SEGV_CPERR was introduced by x86 shadow stack patches.
> > >
> > > To keep uprobes working, handle the uprobe event first before reporting
> > > the CFI violation in software-check exception handler. Because when the
> > > landing pad is activated, if the uprobe point is set at the lpad
> > > instruction at the beginning of a function, the system triggers a software
> > > -check exception instead of an ebreak exception due to the exception
> > > priority, then uprobe can't work successfully.
> > >
> > > Co-developed-by: Zong Li <zong.li@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Zong Li <zong.li@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Zong Li <zong.li@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/riscv/include/asm/asm-prototypes.h | 1 +
> > > arch/riscv/include/asm/entry-common.h | 2 ++
> > > arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S | 3 ++
> > > arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 4 files changed, 57 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/asm-prototypes.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/asm-prototypes.h
> > > index cd627ec289f1..5a27cefd7805 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/asm-prototypes.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/asm-prototypes.h
> > > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ DECLARE_DO_ERROR_INFO(do_trap_ecall_u);
> > > DECLARE_DO_ERROR_INFO(do_trap_ecall_s);
> > > DECLARE_DO_ERROR_INFO(do_trap_ecall_m);
> > > DECLARE_DO_ERROR_INFO(do_trap_break);
> > > +DECLARE_DO_ERROR_INFO(do_trap_software_check);
> > >
> > > asmlinkage void handle_bad_stack(struct pt_regs *regs);
> > > asmlinkage void do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs);
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/entry-common.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/entry-common.h
> > > index b28ccc6cdeea..34ed149af5d1 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/entry-common.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/entry-common.h
> > > @@ -40,4 +40,6 @@ static inline int handle_misaligned_store(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > }
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > +bool handle_user_cfi_violation(struct pt_regs *regs);
> > > +
> > > #endif /* _ASM_RISCV_ENTRY_COMMON_H */
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
> > > index 978115567bca..8d25837a9384 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
> > > @@ -474,6 +474,9 @@ SYM_DATA_START_LOCAL(excp_vect_table)
> > > RISCV_PTR do_page_fault /* load page fault */
> > > RISCV_PTR do_trap_unknown
> > > RISCV_PTR do_page_fault /* store page fault */
> > > + RISCV_PTR do_trap_unknown /* cause=16 */
> > > + RISCV_PTR do_trap_unknown /* cause=17 */
> > > + RISCV_PTR do_trap_software_check /* cause=18 is sw check exception */
> > > SYM_DATA_END_LABEL(excp_vect_table, SYM_L_LOCAL, excp_vect_table_end)
> > >
> > > #ifndef CONFIG_MMU
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
> > > index 8ff8e8b36524..64388370e1ad 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
> > > @@ -354,6 +354,57 @@ void do_trap_ecall_u(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > +#define CFI_TVAL_FCFI_CODE 2
> > > +#define CFI_TVAL_BCFI_CODE 3
> > > +/* handle cfi violations */
> > > +bool handle_user_cfi_violation(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long tval = csr_read(CSR_TVAL);
> > > + bool is_fcfi = (tval == CFI_TVAL_FCFI_CODE && cpu_supports_indirect_br_lp_instr());
> > > + bool is_bcfi = (tval == CFI_TVAL_BCFI_CODE && cpu_supports_shadow_stack());
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Handle uprobe event first. The probe point can be a valid target
> > > + * of indirect jumps or calls, in this case, forward cfi violation
> > > + * will be triggered instead of breakpoint exception.
> > > + */
> > > + if (is_fcfi && probe_breakpoint_handler(regs))
> > > + return true;
> >
> > Hi Deepak,
> > Sorry for missing something earlier. I think we would like to clear
> > sstatus.SPELP in the uprobe handling case. For example:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
> > index c2ea999c1167..e8492bb57e09 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
> > @@ -349,8 +349,10 @@ bool handle_user_cfi_violation(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > bool is_fcfi = (tval == CFI_TVAL_FCFI_CODE &&
> > cpu_supports_indirect_br_lp_instr());
> > bool is_bcfi = (tval == CFI_TVAL_BCFI_CODE &&
> > cpu_supports_shadow_stack());
> >
> > - if (is_fcfi && probe_breakpoint_handler(regs))
> > + if (is_fcfi && probe_breakpoint_handler(regs)) {
> > + regs->status = regs->status & ~SR_ELP;
> > return true;
> > + }
Make sense. I'll pick it up in the next version. Thanks.
> >
> > if (is_fcfi || is_bcfi) {
> > do_trap_error(regs, SIGSEGV, SEGV_CPERR, regs->epc,
> >
> >
> > When a user mode CFI violation occurs, the ELP state should be 1, and
> > the system traps into supervisor mode. During this trap, sstatus.SPELP
> > is set to 1, and the ELP state is reset to 0. If we don’t clear
> > sstatus.SPELP, the ELP state will become 1 again after executing the
> > sret instruction. As a result, the system might trigger another
> > forward CFI violation upon executing the next instruction in the user
> > program, unless it happens to be a lpad instruction.
> >
> > The previous patch was tested on QEMU, but QEMU does not set the
> > sstatus.SPELP bit to 1 when a forward CFI violation occurs. Therefore,
> > I suspect that QEMU might also require some fixes.
>
> Hi Deepak,
> The issue with QEMU was that the sw-check exception bit in medeleg
> couldn't be set. This has been fixed in the latest QEMU mainline. I
> have re-tested the latest QEMU version, and it works.
Thanks for the fix.
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (is_fcfi || is_bcfi) {
> > > + do_trap_error(regs, SIGSEGV, SEGV_CPERR, regs->epc,
> > > + "Oops - control flow violation");
> > > + return true;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return false;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * software check exception is defined with risc-v cfi spec. Software check
> > > + * exception is raised when:-
> > > + * a) An indirect branch doesn't land on 4 byte aligned PC or `lpad`
> > > + * instruction or `label` value programmed in `lpad` instr doesn't
> > > + * match with value setup in `x7`. reported code in `xtval` is 2.
> > > + * b) `sspopchk` instruction finds a mismatch between top of shadow stack (ssp)
> > > + * and x1/x5. reported code in `xtval` is 3.
> > > + */
> > > +asmlinkage __visible __trap_section void do_trap_software_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > +{
> > > + if (user_mode(regs)) {
> > > + irqentry_enter_from_user_mode(regs);
> > > +
> > > + /* not a cfi violation, then merge into flow of unknown trap handler */
> > > + if (!handle_user_cfi_violation(regs))
> > > + do_trap_unknown(regs);
> > > +
> > > + irqentry_exit_to_user_mode(regs);
> > > + } else {
> > > + /* sw check exception coming from kernel is a bug in kernel */
> > > + die(regs, "Kernel BUG");
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_MMU
> > > asmlinkage __visible noinstr void do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > {
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
