|
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+GpsyrAz=ELYpUaKjYCY33-RhxczhaB=Rucmdc+7SO-A@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:20:32 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> Cc: Jinbum Park <jinb.park7@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, andy.gross@...aro.org, Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>, f.fainelli@...il.com, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>, Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: mm: add testcases for RODATA On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> wrote: > On 01/18/2017 05:53 AM, Jinbum Park wrote: >> This patch adds testcases for the CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA option. >> It's similar to x86's testcases. >> It tests read-only mapped data and page-size aligned rodata section. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jinbum Park <jinb.park7@...il.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/Kconfig.debug | 5 +++ >> arch/arm/include/asm/cacheflush.h | 10 +++++ >> arch/arm/mm/Makefile | 1 + >> arch/arm/mm/init.c | 6 +++ >> arch/arm/mm/test_rodata.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 5 files changed, 102 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mm/test_rodata.c >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug b/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug >> index d83f7c3..511e5e1 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug >> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug >> @@ -1749,6 +1749,11 @@ config DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX >> against certain classes of kernel exploits. >> If in doubt, say "N". >> >> +config DEBUG_RODATA_TEST >> + bool "Testcase for the marking rodata read-only" >> + ---help--- >> + This option enables a testcase for the setting rodata read-only. >> + >> source "drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Kconfig" >> >> endmenu >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cacheflush.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cacheflush.h >> index bdd283b..741e2e8 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cacheflush.h >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cacheflush.h >> @@ -498,6 +498,16 @@ static inline void set_kernel_text_rw(void) { } >> static inline void set_kernel_text_ro(void) { } >> #endif >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA_TEST >> +extern const int rodata_test_data; >> +int rodata_test(void); >> +#else >> +static inline int rodata_test(void) >> +{ >> + return 0; >> +} >> +#endif >> + >> void flush_uprobe_xol_access(struct page *page, unsigned long uaddr, >> void *kaddr, unsigned long len); >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/Makefile b/arch/arm/mm/Makefile >> index b3dea80..dbb76ff 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mm/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/Makefile >> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ endif >> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_PTDUMP) += dump.o >> obj-$(CONFIG_MODULES) += proc-syms.o >> obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL) += physaddr.o >> +obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA_TEST) += test_rodata.o >> >> obj-$(CONFIG_ALIGNMENT_TRAP) += alignment.o >> obj-$(CONFIG_HIGHMEM) += highmem.o >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b/arch/arm/mm/init.c >> index 4127f57..3c15f3b 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c >> @@ -716,6 +716,7 @@ void fix_kernmem_perms(void) >> int __mark_rodata_ro(void *unused) >> { >> update_sections_early(ro_perms, ARRAY_SIZE(ro_perms)); >> + rodata_test(); > > We don't do anything with this return value, should we at least > spit out a warning? > >> return 0; >> } >> >> @@ -740,6 +741,11 @@ void set_kernel_text_ro(void) >> static inline void fix_kernmem_perms(void) { } >> #endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA */ >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA_TEST >> +const int rodata_test_data = 0xC3; > > This isn't accessed outside of test_rodata.c, it can just > be moved there. > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rodata_test_data); >> +#endif >> + >> void free_tcmmem(void) >> { >> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_TCM >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/test_rodata.c b/arch/arm/mm/test_rodata.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..133d092 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/test_rodata.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ >> +/* >> + * test_rodata.c: functional test for mark_rodata_ro function >> + * >> + * (C) Copyright 2017 Jinbum Park <jinb.park7@...il.com> >> + * >> + * 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; version 2 >> + * of the License. >> + */ >> +#include <asm/cacheflush.h> >> +#include <asm/sections.h> >> + >> +int rodata_test(void) >> +{ >> + unsigned long result; >> + unsigned long start, end; >> + >> + /* test 1: read the value */ >> + /* If this test fails, some previous testrun has clobbered the state */ >> + >> + if (!rodata_test_data) { >> + pr_err("rodata_test: test 1 fails (start data)\n"); >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } >> + >> + /* test 2: write to the variable; this should fault */ >> + /* >> + * If this test fails, we managed to overwrite the data >> + * >> + * This is written in assembly to be able to catch the >> + * exception that is supposed to happen in the correct >> + * case >> + */ >> + >> + result = 1; >> + asm volatile( >> + "0: str %[zero], [%[rodata_test]]\n" >> + " mov %[rslt], %[zero]\n" >> + "1:\n" >> + ".pushsection .text.fixup,\"ax\"\n" >> + ".align 2\n" >> + "2:\n" >> + "b 1b\n" >> + ".popsection\n" >> + ".pushsection __ex_table,\"a\"\n" >> + ".align 3\n" >> + ".long 0b, 2b\n" >> + ".popsection\n" >> + : [rslt] "=r" (result) >> + : [zero] "r" (0UL), [rodata_test] "r" (&rodata_test_data) >> + ); >> + >> + if (!result) { >> + pr_err("rodata_test: test data was not read only\n"); >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } >> + >> + /* test 3: check the value hasn't changed */ >> + /* If this test fails, we managed to overwrite the data */ >> + if (!rodata_test_data) { >> + pr_err("rodata_test: Test 3 fails (end data)\n"); >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } > > I'm confused why we are checking this again when we have the result > check above. Is there a case where we would still have result = 1 > but rodata_test_data overwritten? > >> + >> + /* test 4: check if the rodata section is 4Kb aligned */ >> + start = (unsigned long)__start_rodata; >> + end = (unsigned long)__end_rodata; >> + if (start & (PAGE_SIZE - 1)) { >> + pr_err("rodata_test: .rodata is not 4k aligned\n"); >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } >> + if (end & (PAGE_SIZE - 1)) { >> + pr_err("rodata_test: .rodata end is not 4k aligned\n"); >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } > > Why does this need to be page aligned (yes, I know why but this > test case does not make it clear) > > Better yet, this should be a build time assertion not a runtime > one. > >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> > > As Mark mentioned, this is possibly redundant with LKDTM. It > would be good to explain what benefit this is bringing in addition > to LKDTM. The only thing I could think of would be to make failures block the boot. (Though that would mean changing x86 too.) That's kind of like the W^X test, which spits out a BUG IIRC. -Kees -- Kees Cook Nexus Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.