[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJcbSZF5-gVg=Q6yAV2ymHo+SC6Go=vQHXMR0UTdKH2Jbe-s-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:42:36 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>, Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>, Peter Foley <pefoley2@...oley.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 16/22] x86/percpu: Adapt percpu for PIE support
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:33 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 07/19/17 11:26, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>>> Perpcu uses a clever design where the .percu ELF section has a virtual
>>>>> address of zero and the relocation code avoid relocating specific
>>>>> symbols. It makes the code simple and easily adaptable with or without
>>>>> SMP support.
>>>>>
>>>>> This design is incompatible with PIE because generated code always try to
>>>>> access the zero virtual address relative to the default mapping address.
>>>>> It becomes impossible when KASLR is configured to go below -2G. This
>>>>> patch solves this problem by removing the zero mapping and adapting the GS
>>>>> base to be relative to the expected address. These changes are done only
>>>>> when PIE is enabled. The original implementation is kept as-is
>>>>> by default.
>>>>
>>>> The reason the per-cpu section is zero-based on x86-64 is to
>>>> workaround GCC hardcoding the stack protector canary at %gs:40. So
>>>> this patch is incompatible with CONFIG_STACK_PROTECTOR.
>>>
>>> Ok, that make sense. I don't want this feature to not work with
>>> CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR*. One way to fix that would be adding a GDT
>>> entry for gs so gs:40 points to the correct memory address and
>>> gs:[rip+XX] works correctly through the MSR.
>>
>> What are you talking about? A GDT entry and the MSR do the same thing,
>> except that a GDT entry is limited to an offset of 0-0xffffffff (which
>> doesn't work for us, obviously.)
>>
>
> A GDT entry would allow gs:0x40 to be valid while all gs:[rip+XX]
> addresses uses the MSR.
>
> I didn't tested it but that was used on the RFG mitigation [1]. The fs
> segment register was used for both thread storage and shadow stack.
>
> [1] http://xlab.tencent.com/en/2016/11/02/return-flow-guard/
>
Small update on that.
I noticed that not only we have the problem of gs:0x40 not being
accessible. The compiler will default to the fs register if
mcmodel=kernel is not set.
On the next patch set, I am going to add support for
-mstack-protector-guard=global so a global variable can be used
instead of the segment register. Similar approach than ARM/ARM64.
Following this patch, I will work with gcc and llvm to add
-mstack-protector-reg=<segment register> support similar to PowerPC.
This way we can have gs used even without mcmodel=kernel. Once that's
an option, I can setup the GDT as described in the previous email
(similar to RFG).
Let me know what you think about this approach.
>>> Given the separate
>>> discussion on mcmodel, I am going first to check if we can move from
>>> PIE to PIC with a mcmodel=small or medium that would remove the percpu
>>> change requirement. I tried before without success but I understand
>>> better percpu and other components so maybe I can make it work.
>>
>>>> This is silly. The right thing is for PIE is to be explicitly absolute,
>>>> without (%rip). The use of (%rip) memory references for percpu is just
>>>> an optimization.
>>>
>>> I agree that it is odd but that's how the compiler generates code. I
>>> will re-explore PIC options with mcmodel=small or medium, as mentioned
>>> on other threads.
>>
>> Why should the way compiler generates code affect the way we do things
>> in assembly?
>>
>> That being said, the compiler now has support for generating this kind
>> of code explicitly via the __seg_gs pointer modifier. That should let
>> us drop the __percpu_prefix and just use variables directly. I suspect
>> we want to declare percpu variables as "volatile __seg_gs" to account
>> for the possibility of CPU switches.
>>
>> Older compilers won't be able to work with this, of course, but I think
>> that it is acceptable for those older compilers to not be able to
>> support PIE.
>>
>> -hpa
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas
--
Thomas
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.
