[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171004151312.GA20938@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:13:12 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Makefile: Move stackprotector
availability out of Kconfig
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 11:33:38PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
>
> 2017-10-03 4:20 GMT+09:00 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>:
> > Various portions of the kernel, especially per-architecture pieces,
> > need to know if the compiler is building it with the stack protector.
> > This was done in the arch/Kconfig with 'select', but this doesn't
> > allow a way to do auto-detected compiler support. In preparation for
> > creating an on-if-available default, move the logic for the definition of
> > CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR into the Makefile.
> >
> > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
> > Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
> > Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > Cc: linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > ---
> > Makefile | 7 +++++--
> > arch/Kconfig | 8 --------
> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > index d1119941261c..e122a9cf0399 100644
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -688,8 +688,11 @@ else
> > stackp-flag := $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector)
> > endif
> > endif
> > -# Find arch-specific stack protector compiler sanity-checking script.
> > -ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> > +ifdef stackp-name
> > + # If the stack protector has been selected, inform the rest of the build.
> > + KBUILD_CFLAGS += -DCONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> > + KBUILD_AFLAGS += -DCONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> > + # Find arch-specific stack protector compiler sanity-checking script.
> > stackp-path := $(srctree)/scripts/gcc-$(SRCARCH)_$(BITS)-has-stack-protector.sh
> > stackp-check := $(wildcard $(stackp-path))
> > endif
>
>
> I have not tested this series,
> but I think this commit is bad (with the follow-up patch applied).
>
>
> I thought of this scenario:
>
> [1] Kernel is configured with CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO
>
> [2] Kernel is built with a compiler without stack protector support.
>
> [3] CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is not defined,
> so __stack_chk_fail() is not compiled.
>
> [4] Out-of-tree modules are compiled with a compiler with
> stack protector support.
> __stack_chk_fail() is inserted to functions of the modules.
We don't ever support the system of loading a module built with anything
other than the _exact_ same compiler than the kernel was. So this will
not happen (well, if someone tries it, they get to keep the pieces their
kernel image is now in...)
> [5] insmod fails because reference to __stack_chk_fail()
> can not be resolved.
Even nicer, we failed "cleanly" :)
This isn't a real-world issue, sorry.
thanks,
greg k-h
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.
