|
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKidijcESX2vguQ=m4Fx1S7eKOKXrLTEb3Of1FN9jQbbg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:55:50 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Keun-O Park <kpark3469@...il.com> Cc: Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae, Sodagudi Prasad <psodagud@...eaurora.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: usercopy: implement arch_within_stack_frames On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:19 AM, <kpark3469@...il.com> wrote: > From: James Morse <james.morse@....com> > > This implements arch_within_stack_frames() for arm64 that should > validate if a given object is contained by a kernel stack frame. > > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com> > Reviewed-by: Sahara <keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae> Looks good to me. Does this end up passing the LKDTM USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_TO and USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_FROM tests? Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> -Kees > --- > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 + > arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index 5361287..b6c3b52 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ config ARM64 > select HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS > select HAVE_KPROBES > select HAVE_KRETPROBES > + select HAVE_ARCH_WITHIN_STACK_FRAMES > select IOMMU_DMA if IOMMU_SUPPORT > select IRQ_DOMAIN > select IRQ_FORCED_THREADING > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c > index fbc366d..6d37fad 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c > @@ -26,6 +26,11 @@ > #include <asm/irq.h> > #include <asm/stack_pointer.h> > > +#define FAKE_FRAME(frame, my_func) do { \ > + frame.fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(0); \ > + frame.pc = (unsigned long)my_func; \ > +} while (0) > + > /* > * AArch64 PCS assigns the frame pointer to x29. > * > @@ -94,6 +99,77 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame, > } > } > > +struct check_frame_arg { > + unsigned long obj_start; > + unsigned long obj_end; > + unsigned long frame_start; > + int discard_frames; > + int err; > +}; > + > +static int check_frame(struct stackframe *frame, void *d) > +{ > + struct check_frame_arg *arg = d; > + unsigned long frame_end = frame->fp; > + > + /* object overlaps multiple frames */ > + if (arg->obj_start < frame->fp && frame->fp < arg->obj_end) { > + arg->err = BAD_STACK; > + return 1; > + } > + > + /* > + * Discard frames and check object is in a frame written early > + * enough. > + */ > + if (arg->discard_frames) > + arg->discard_frames--; > + else if ((arg->frame_start <= arg->obj_start && > + arg->obj_start < frame_end) && > + (arg->frame_start < arg->obj_end && arg->obj_end <= frame_end)) > + return 1; > + > + /* object exists in a previous frame */ > + if (arg->obj_end < arg->frame_start) { > + arg->err = BAD_STACK; > + return 1; > + } > + > + arg->frame_start = frame_end + 0x10; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +/* Check obj doesn't overlap a stack frame record */ > +int arch_within_stack_frames(const void *stack, > + const void *stack_end, > + const void *obj, unsigned long obj_len) > +{ > + struct stackframe frame; > + struct check_frame_arg arg; > + > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER)) > + return NOT_STACK; > + > + arg.err = GOOD_FRAME; > + arg.obj_start = (unsigned long)obj; > + arg.obj_end = arg.obj_start + obj_len; > + > + FAKE_FRAME(frame, arch_within_stack_frames); > + arg.frame_start = frame.fp; > + > + /* > + * Skip 4 non-inlined frames: <fake frame>, > + * arch_within_stack_frames(), check_stack_object() and > + * __check_object_size(). > + */ > + arg.discard_frames = 4; > + > + walk_stackframe(current, &frame, check_frame, &arg); > + > + return arg.err; > +} > + > #ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE > struct stack_trace_data { > struct stack_trace *trace; > -- > 2.7.4 > -- Kees Cook Pixel 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.