From: "Schimpe, Christina" <christina.schimpe@intel.com>
To: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>,
"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Cc: "thiago.bauermann@linaro.org" <thiago.bauermann@linaro.org>,
"luis.machado@arm.com" <luis.machado@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 12/12] gdb: Enable displaced stepping with shadow stack on amd64 linux.
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:29:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SN7PR11MB763826108E5DE854372A4496F927A@SN7PR11MB7638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874iutdbjg.fsf@redhat.com>
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for the review.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 4:00 PM
> To: Schimpe, Christina <christina.schimpe@intel.com>; gdb-
> patches@sourceware.org
> Cc: thiago.bauermann@linaro.org; luis.machado@arm.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/12] gdb: Enable displaced stepping with shadow
> stack on amd64 linux.
>
> Christina Schimpe <christina.schimpe@intel.com> writes:
>
> > Currently, if displaced stepping is active and the single stepped
> > instruction is a call instruction, the return address atop the stack
> > is the address following the copied instruction. However, to allow
> > normal program execution it has to be the address following the
> > original instruction. Due to that reason, the return address is
> > corrected in amd64_displaced_step_fixup and i386_displaced_step_fixup.
> >
> > For programs that are shadow-stack enabled we see a control-protection
> > exception, as the address on the shadow stack does not match the
> > address atop the stack.
> >
> > Fix this by correcting the shadow stack top address as well.
> >
> > Reviewed-By: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> > ---
> > gdb/NEWS | 3 +
> > gdb/amd64-linux-tdep.c | 16 +++-
> > gdb/amd64-tdep.c | 15 +++
> > gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 11 ++-
> > gdb/i386-tdep.c | 15 +++
> > .../gdb.arch/amd64-shadow-stack-disp-step.exp | 92
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> > 6 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode
> > 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-shadow-stack-disp-step.exp
> >
> > diff --git a/gdb/NEWS b/gdb/NEWS
> > index ba555f0dea1..60510fefea4 100644
> > --- a/gdb/NEWS
> > +++ b/gdb/NEWS
> > @@ -3,6 +3,9 @@
> >
> > *** Changes since GDB 16
> >
> > +* Debugging Linux programs that use x86-64 or x86-64 with 32-bit
> > +pointer
> > + size (X32) Shadow Stacks are now supported.
> > +
> > * Support for the shadow stack pointer register on x86-64 or x86-64 with
> > 32-bit pointer size (X32) GNU/Linux.
> >
> > diff --git a/gdb/amd64-linux-tdep.c b/gdb/amd64-linux-tdep.c index
> > 899fe2df02c..782b66f1467 100644
> > --- a/gdb/amd64-linux-tdep.c
> > +++ b/gdb/amd64-linux-tdep.c
> > @@ -1936,8 +1936,10 @@
> amd64_linux_shadow_stack_element_size_aligned (gdbarch *gdbarch)
> > possible. */
> >
> > static std::optional<CORE_ADDR>
> > -amd64_linux_get_shadow_stack_pointer (gdbarch *gdbarch, regcache
> > *regcache)
> > +amd64_linux_get_shadow_stack_pointer (gdbarch *gdbarch, regcache
> *regcache,
> > + bool &shadow_stack_enabled)
> > {
> > + shadow_stack_enabled = false;
> > const i386_gdbarch_tdep *tdep = gdbarch_tdep<i386_gdbarch_tdep>
> > (gdbarch);
> >
> > if (tdep == nullptr || tdep->ssp_regnum < 0) @@ -1955,6 +1957,9 @@
> > amd64_linux_get_shadow_stack_pointer (gdbarch *gdbarch, regcache
> *regcache)
> > if (ssp == 0x0)
> > return {};
> >
> > + /* In case there is a shadow stack pointer available which is non-null,
> > + the shadow stack feature is enabled. */ shadow_stack_enabled =
> > + true;
> > return ssp;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1965,8 +1970,13 @@ static void
> > amd64_linux_shadow_stack_push (gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR
> new_addr,
> > regcache *regcache)
> > {
> > + bool shadow_stack_enabled;
> > std::optional<CORE_ADDR> ssp
> > - = amd64_linux_get_shadow_stack_pointer (gdbarch, regcache);
> > + = amd64_linux_get_shadow_stack_pointer (gdbarch, regcache,
> > + shadow_stack_enabled);
> > +
> > + /* For amd64/Linux, if SSP has a value that means shadow stack is
> > + enabled. */
>
> It feels like this statement should be associated with an assert. I'd
> suggest:
>
> if (!ssp.has_value ())
> return;
> else
> gdb_assert (shadow_stack_enabled);
Agree, will add.
> > if (!ssp.has_value ())
> > return;
> >
> > @@ -2122,6 +2132,8 @@ amd64_linux_init_abi_common(struct
> gdbarch_info info, struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
> > (gdbarch, amd64_linux_remove_non_address_bits_watchpoint);
> >
> > set_gdbarch_shadow_stack_push (gdbarch,
> > amd64_linux_shadow_stack_push);
> > + set_gdbarch_get_shadow_stack_pointer (gdbarch,
> > +
> amd64_linux_get_shadow_stack_pointer);
> > dwarf2_frame_set_init_reg (gdbarch, amd64_init_reg); }
> >
> > diff --git a/gdb/amd64-tdep.c b/gdb/amd64-tdep.c index
> > 450dbc38047..8afb3a7abba 100644
> > --- a/gdb/amd64-tdep.c
> > +++ b/gdb/amd64-tdep.c
> > @@ -1917,6 +1917,21 @@ amd64_displaced_step_fixup (struct gdbarch
> *gdbarch,
> > displaced_debug_printf ("relocated return addr at %s to %s",
> > paddress (gdbarch, rsp),
> > paddress (gdbarch, retaddr));
> > +
> > + /* If shadow stack is enabled, we need to correct the return address
> > + on the shadow stack too. */
> > + bool shadow_stack_enabled;
> > + std::optional<CORE_ADDR> ssp
> > + = gdbarch_get_shadow_stack_pointer (gdbarch, regs,
> > + shadow_stack_enabled);
> > + if (ssp.has_value () && shadow_stack_enabled)
>
> Given the strengthening of the comment on
> gdbarch_get_shadow_stack_pointer that I suggest in the previous patch, I
> think this should become:
>
> if (shadow_stack_enabled)
> {
> gdb_assert (ssp.has_value ());
>
> ... etc ...
> }
Agree, will add.
> > + {
> > + write_memory_unsigned_integer (*ssp, retaddr_len, byte_order,
> > + retaddr);
> > + displaced_debug_printf ("relocated shadow stack return addr at %s
> "
> > + "to %s", paddress (gdbarch, *ssp),
> > + paddress (gdbarch, retaddr));
> > + }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo index
> > b5120b78426..488816d5ca2 100644
> > --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> > +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> > @@ -27059,12 +27059,20 @@ the program stream must be an
> @code{ENDBR}
> > instruction, otherwise the processor signals a control protection
> exception.
> > @end itemize
> >
> > -Impact on Call/Print:
> > +Impact on GDB commands:
> > +@itemize @bullet
> > +@item Call/Print:
> > Inferior calls in @value{GDBN} reset the current PC to the beginning
> > of the function that is called. No call instruction is executed, but
> > the @code{RET} instruction actually is. To avoid a control
> > protection exception due to the missing return address on the shadow
> > stack, @value{GDBN} pushes the new return address to the shadow stack
> and updates the shadow stack pointer.
> > +@item Step:
> > +With displaced stepping, @value{GDBN} may run an out of line copy of
> > +a call instruction. In this case, the wrong return address is pushed
> > +to the shadow stack. @value{GDBN} corrects this value to avoid a
> > +control protection exception. For more details on displaced stepping, see
> @ref{displaced-stepping}.
> > +@end itemize
> >
> > @node Alpha
> > @subsection Alpha
> > @@ -41741,6 +41749,7 @@ GLOBAL Disassembler_2
> (Matches current architecture)
> > @cindex out-of-line single-stepping
> > @item set displaced-stepping
> > @itemx show displaced-stepping
> > +@anchor{displaced-stepping}
> > Control whether or not @value{GDBN} will do @dfn{displaced stepping}
> > if the target supports it. Displaced stepping is a way to single-step
> > over breakpoints without removing them from the inferior, by executing
> > diff --git a/gdb/i386-tdep.c b/gdb/i386-tdep.c index
> > 8eb5b4fac86..3b05ace2142 100644
> > --- a/gdb/i386-tdep.c
> > +++ b/gdb/i386-tdep.c
> > @@ -899,6 +899,21 @@ i386_displaced_step_fixup (struct gdbarch
> *gdbarch,
> > displaced_debug_printf ("relocated return addr at %s to %s",
> > paddress (gdbarch, esp),
> > paddress (gdbarch, retaddr));
> > +
> > + /* If shadow stack is enabled, we need to correct the return address
> > + on the shadow stack too. */
> > + bool shadow_stack_enabled;
> > + std::optional<CORE_ADDR> ssp
> > + = gdbarch_get_shadow_stack_pointer (gdbarch, regs,
> > + shadow_stack_enabled);
> > + if (ssp.has_value () && shadow_stack_enabled)
>
> Same comment here as for amd64.
Yes, will fix.
> > + {
> > + write_memory_unsigned_integer (*ssp, retaddr_len, byte_order,
> > + retaddr);
> > + displaced_debug_printf ("relocated shadow stack return addr at %s
> "
> > + "to %s", paddress (gdbarch, *ssp),
> > + paddress (gdbarch, retaddr));
> > + }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-shadow-stack-disp-step.exp
> > b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-shadow-stack-disp-step.exp
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..47bb4df8cfe
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-shadow-stack-disp-step.exp
> > @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
> > +# Copyright 2025 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > +
> > +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > +modify # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> > +published by # the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the
> > +License, or # (at your option) any later version.
> > +#
> > +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, #
> > +but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of #
> > +MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the #
> GNU
> > +General Public License for more details.
> > +#
> > +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License #
> > +along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> > +
> > +# Test continue from call instructions with shadow stack and
> > +displaced # stepping being enabled.
> > +
> > +require allow_ssp_tests support_displaced_stepping
> > +
> > +standard_testfile amd64-shadow-stack.c
> > +
> > +save_vars { ::env(GLIBC_TUNABLES) } {
> > +
> > + append_environment GLIBC_TUNABLES "glibc.cpu.hwcaps" "SHSTK"
> > +
> > + if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" ${testfile} ${srcfile} \
> > + additional_flags="-fcf-protection=return"] } {
> > + return -1
>
> All of the 'return -1' in the global scope should just be 'return'. The
> -1 is not checked or used.
Yes, will fix.
> > + }
> > +
> > + # Enable displaced stepping.
> > + gdb_test_no_output "set displaced-stepping on"
> > + gdb_test "show displaced-stepping" ".* displaced stepping .* is on.*"
> > +
> > + if { ![runto_main] } {
> > + return -1
> > + }
> > +
> > + # Get the address of the call1 instruction.
>
> I think you mean:
>
> # Get the address of the call to the call1 function.
Yes, thank you.
> > + set call1_addr -1
> > + gdb_test_multiple "disassemble main" "" {
> > + -re -wrap "($hex) <\\+($decimal)>:\\s*call\\s*0x.*<call1>.*" {
> > + set call1_addr $expect_out(1,string)
> > + pass $gdb_test_name
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if { $call1_addr == -1 } {
> > + return -1
> > + }
> > +
> > + # Get the address of the call2 instruction.
>
> As above:
>
> # Get the address of the call to the call2 function.
Will fix.
> > + set call2_addr -1
> > + gdb_test_multiple "disassemble call1" "" {
> > + -re -wrap "($hex) <\\+($decimal)>:\\s*call\\s*0x.*<call2>.*" {
> > + set call2_addr $expect_out(1,string)
> > + pass $gdb_test_name
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if { $call2_addr == -1 } {
> > + return -1
> > + }
> > +
> > + gdb_test "break *$call1_addr" \
> > + "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex.*" \
> > + "break at the address of the call1 instruction"
> > +
> > + gdb_test "break *$call2_addr" \
> > + "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex.*" \
> > + "break at the address of the call2 instruction"
> > +
> > + # Depending on instruction generation we might end up in the call
> > + # instruction after "runto_main". Only resume until call1 instruction
> > + # in case the first instruction we're stopped at is not yet the call1
> > + # instruction.
>
> Could you not just add some filler to the test program to avoid needing to
> do this? I don't really object (to this) but using filler might be simpler.
Indeed, simply adding a nop instruction will fix this:
~~~
/* Depending on instruction generation we might end up in the call
instruction of call1 function after "runto_main". Avoid this by
adding a nop instruction, to simplify the testing in
amd64-shadow-stack-disp-step.exp. */
asm ("nop");
~~~
Thank you!
> > + set stop_addr [get_valueof "/x" "\$pc" "" "value of pc after
> runto_main"]
> > + if {[eval expr "$stop_addr < $call1_addr"]} {
>
> Is the 'eval expr' really needed here? There are plenty of the places in the
> testsuite where we just write something like:
>
> if { $stop_addr < $call1_addr } { ... }
>
> so I would have expected that to work.
I see:
ERROR: tcl error sourcing /tmp/gdb.arch/amd64-shadow-stack-disp-step.exp.
ERROR: tcl error code TCL LOOKUP COMMAND {0x555555555148 < 0x000055555555514d}
ERROR: invalid command name "0x555555555148 < 0x000055555555514d"
while executing
"::gdb_tcl_unknown {0x555555555148 < 0x000055555555514d}"
I think the examples that are available in the testsuite for comparing addresses are
always inside gdb_assert.
The gdb_assert proc then again uses "expr". But I can omit "eval" at least.
Kind Regards,
Christina
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> > + gdb_test "continue" \
> > + "Breakpoint $decimal, $call1_addr in main ().*" \
> > + "continue until call1 instruction"
> > + }
> > + gdb_assert {$call1_addr == [get_valueof "/x" "\$pc" ""]}
> > +
> > + # Test continue from breakpoint at call1 and call2 instructions.
> > + gdb_test "continue" \
> > + "Breakpoint $decimal, $call2_addr in call1 ().*" \
> > + "continue from call1 instruction"
> > +
> > + gdb_continue_to_end "continue from call2 instruction"
> > +}
> > --
> > 2.43.0
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Sean Fennelly, Jeffrey Schneiderman, Tiffany Doon Silva
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-31 17:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-28 8:27 [PATCH v5 00/12] Add CET shadow stack support Christina Schimpe
2025-06-28 8:27 ` [PATCH v5 01/12] gdb, testsuite: Extend core_find procedure to save program output Christina Schimpe
2025-07-14 12:21 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-07-17 13:37 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 02/12] gdbserver: Add optional runtime register set type Christina Schimpe
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 03/12] gdbserver: Add assert in x86_linux_read_description Christina Schimpe
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 04/12] gdb: Sync up x86-gcc-cpuid.h with cpuid.h from gcc 14 branch Christina Schimpe
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 05/12] gdb, gdbserver: Use xstate_bv for target description creation on x86 Christina Schimpe
2025-07-14 13:52 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-07-15 10:28 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-07-23 12:47 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-05 13:47 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 06/12] gdb, gdbserver: Add support of Intel shadow stack pointer register Christina Schimpe
2025-07-25 12:49 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-07-25 15:03 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-01 12:54 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-05 13:57 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-08-06 19:53 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-06 19:54 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-07 3:17 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2025-08-14 11:39 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-07-29 13:51 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-08-01 12:40 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-10 19:01 ` H.J. Lu
2025-08-10 20:07 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 07/12] gdb: amd64 linux coredump support with shadow stack Christina Schimpe
2025-07-29 14:46 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-07-30 1:55 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2025-07-30 11:42 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-04 15:28 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-05 4:29 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2025-08-05 15:29 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-06 20:52 ` Luis
2025-08-11 11:52 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-04 12:45 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 08/12] gdb: Handle shadow stack pointer register unwinding for amd64 linux Christina Schimpe
2025-07-30 9:58 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-07-30 12:06 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 09/12] gdb, gdbarch: Enable inferior calls for shadow stack support Christina Schimpe
2025-07-30 10:42 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 10/12] gdb: Implement amd64 linux shadow stack support for inferior calls Christina Schimpe
2025-07-30 11:58 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-07-31 12:32 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 11/12] gdb, gdbarch: Introduce gdbarch method to get the shadow stack pointer Christina Schimpe
2025-07-30 12:22 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-08-04 13:01 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-14 15:50 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-08-19 15:37 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-06-28 8:28 ` [PATCH v5 12/12] gdb: Enable displaced stepping with shadow stack on amd64 linux Christina Schimpe
2025-07-30 13:59 ` Andrew Burgess
2025-07-31 17:29 ` Schimpe, Christina [this message]
2025-07-08 15:18 ` [PATCH v5 00/12] Add CET shadow stack support Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-14 7:52 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-07-11 10:36 ` Luis Machado
2025-07-11 13:54 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-07-11 15:54 ` Luis Machado
2025-07-13 14:01 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-07-13 19:05 ` Luis Machado
2025-07-13 19:57 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-07-14 7:13 ` Luis Machado
2025-07-17 12:01 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-07-17 14:59 ` Luis Machado
2025-07-23 12:45 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-07-28 17:05 ` Luis Machado
2025-07-28 17:20 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-20 9:16 ` Schimpe, Christina
2025-08-20 15:21 ` Schimpe, Christina
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=SN7PR11MB763826108E5DE854372A4496F927A@SN7PR11MB7638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=christina.schimpe@intel.com \
--cc=aburgess@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=luis.machado@arm.com \
--cc=thiago.bauermann@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox