[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32f20d8a-3318-0be1-44c4-1153001e9ad8@linux.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:59:34 +0300
From: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5 1/5] x86/entry: Add STACKLEAK erasing the kernel
stack at the end of syscalls
Hello Kees,
On 31.10.2017 18:20, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com> wrote:
>> On 23.10.2017 16:17, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 03:22:49AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>>>> The STACKLEAK feature erases the kernel stack before returning from
>>>> syscalls. That reduces the information which kernel stack leak bugs can
>>>> reveal and blocks some uninitialized stack variable attacks. Moreover,
>>>> STACKLEAK provides runtime checks for kernel stack overflow detection.
>>>>
>>>> This commit introduces the architecture-specific code filling the used
>>>> part of the kernel stack with a poison value before returning to the
>>>> userspace. Full STACKLEAK feature also contains the gcc plugin which
>>>> comes in a separate commit.
>>>>
>>>> The STACKLEAK feature is ported from grsecurity/PaX. More information at:
>>>> https://grsecurity.net/
>>>> https://pax.grsecurity.net/
>>>>
>>>> This code is modified from Brad Spengler/PaX Team's code in the last
>>>> public patch of grsecurity/PaX based on our understanding of the code.
>>>> Changes or omissions from the original code are ours and don't reflect
>>>> the original grsecurity/PaX code.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
>>>> ---
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> @@ -81,8 +87,10 @@ static long syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>> emulated = true;
>>>>
>>>> if ((emulated || (work & _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) &&
>>>> - tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs))
>>>> + tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs)) {
>>>> + erase_kstack();
>>>> return -1L;
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> if (emulated)
>>>> return -1L;
>>>> @@ -116,9 +124,11 @@ static long syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>> sd.args[5] = regs->bp;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - ret = __secure_computing(&sd);
>>>> - if (ret == -1)
>>>> + ret = secure_computing(&sd);
>>>
>>> Is there any reason to switch this from the __ version? This basically
>>> adds an additional check on the TIF_SECCOMP flag, but I'm not sure
>>> that's intentional with this patch.
>>
>> Hello Tycho, thanks for your remark!
>>
>> Initially I took this change from the grsecurity patch, because it looked
>> reasonable for me at that time. But now I doubt, thank you.
>
> Yeah, I'd prefer this stay __secure_computing().
Ok.
>> Kees and Andy (Lutomirski), you are the authors of syscall_trace_enter(). Could
>> you please have a look at this change?
>>
>> By the way, it seems that one erase_kstack() call is missing in that function.
>> Could you please have a glance at the places where erase_kstack() is called?
>
> Errr, wouldn't erase_kstack() get called outside of seccomp? (i.e. via
> syscall_return_slowpath() or something later in the return path?)
Yes, erase_kstack() is called later in entry_SYSCALL_64 just after do_syscall_64.
> Or is there some reason for erasing the stack after seccomp processing
> but before running the syscall?
Ah, it seems that PaX Team is doing that intentionally. I guess I've found the
proof in his slides for H2HC conference (slide 38):
https://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/PaXTeam-H2HC13-PaX-gcc-plugins.pdf
"- Special paths for ptrace/auditing
-- Low-level kernel entry/exit paths can diverge for ptrace/auditing and leave
interesting information on the stack for the actual syscall code"
Do you know which kind of interesting information is mentioned?
And again, erase_kstack() is not called before 1 of 4 return statements in
syscall_trace_enter(). IMHO it is a bug. Could you please verify that? Thanks!
Best regards,
Alexander
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.
