[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180503071917.xm2xvgagvzkworay@salmiak>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 08:19:18 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Clear the stack
Hi Laura,
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
> ---
> Now written in C instead of a bunch of assembly.
This looks neat!
I have a few minor comments below.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
> index bf825f38d206..0ceea613c65b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
> @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ arm64-reloc-test-y := reloc_test_core.o reloc_test_syms.o
> arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP) += crash_dump.o
> arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SDE_INTERFACE) += sdei.o
>
> +arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK) += erase.o
> +KASAN_SANITIZE_erase.o := n
I suspect we want to avoid the full set of instrumentation suspects here, e.g.
GKOV, KASAN, UBSAN, and KCOV.
> +
> obj-y += $(arm64-obj-y) vdso/ probes/
> obj-m += $(arm64-obj-m)
> head-y := head.o
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index ec2ee720e33e..3144f1ebdc18 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -401,6 +401,11 @@ tsk .req x28 // current thread_info
>
> .text
>
> + .macro ERASE_KSTACK
> +#ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
> + bl erase_kstack
> +#endif
> + .endm
Nit: The rest of our asm macros are lower-case -- can we stick to that here?
> /*
> * Exception vectors.
> */
> @@ -906,6 +911,7 @@ ret_to_user:
> cbnz x2, work_pending
> finish_ret_to_user:
> enable_step_tsk x1, x2
> + ERASE_KSTACK
> kernel_exit 0
> ENDPROC(ret_to_user)
I believe we also need this in ret_fast_syscall.
[...]
> +asmlinkage void erase_kstack(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long p = current->thread.lowest_stack;
> + unsigned long boundary = p & ~(THREAD_SIZE - 1);
> + unsigned long poison = 0;
> + const unsigned long check_depth = STACKLEAK_POISON_CHECK_DEPTH /
> + sizeof(unsigned long);
> +
> + /*
> + * Let's search for the poison value in the stack.
> + * Start from the lowest_stack and go to the bottom.
> + */
> + while (p > boundary && poison <= check_depth) {
> + if (*(unsigned long *)p == STACKLEAK_POISON)
> + poison++;
> + else
> + poison = 0;
> +
> + p -= sizeof(unsigned long);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * One long int at the bottom of the thread stack is reserved and
> + * should not be poisoned (see CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK).
> + */
> + if (p == boundary)
> + p += sizeof(unsigned long);
I wonder if end_of_stack() should be taught about CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK,
given that's supposed to return the last *usable* long on the stack, and we
don't account for this elsewhere.
If we did, then IIUC we could do:
unsigned long boundary = (unsigned long)end_of_stack(current);
... at the start of the function, and not have to worry about this explicitly.
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS
> + current->thread.prev_lowest_stack = p;
> +#endif
> +
> + /*
> + * So let's write the poison value to the kernel stack.
> + * Start from the address in p and move up till the new boundary.
> + */
> + boundary = current_stack_pointer;
I worry a little that the compiler can move the SP during a function's
lifetime, but maybe that's only the case when there are VLAs, or something like
that?
> +
> + BUG_ON(boundary - p >= THREAD_SIZE);
> +
> + while (p < boundary) {
> + *(unsigned long *)p = STACKLEAK_POISON;
> + p += sizeof(unsigned long);
> + }
> +
> + /* Reset the lowest_stack value for the next syscall */
> + current->thread.lowest_stack = current_stack_pointer;
> +}
Once this function returns, its data is left on the stack. Is that not a problem?
No strong feelings either way, but it might be worth mentioning in the commit
message.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> index f08a2ed9db0d..156fa0a0da19 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> @@ -364,6 +364,9 @@ int copy_thread(unsigned long clone_flags, unsigned long stack_start,
> p->thread.cpu_context.pc = (unsigned long)ret_from_fork;
> p->thread.cpu_context.sp = (unsigned long)childregs;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
> + p->thread.lowest_stack = (unsigned long)task_stack_page(p);
Nit: end_of_stack(p) would be slightly better semantically, even though
currently equivalent to task_stack_page(p).
[...]
> +#ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
> +void __used check_alloca(unsigned long size)
> +{
> + unsigned long sp, stack_left;
> +
> + sp = current_stack_pointer;
> +
> + stack_left = sp & (THREAD_SIZE - 1);
> + BUG_ON(stack_left < 256 || size >= stack_left - 256);
> +}
Is this arbitrary, or is there something special about 256?
Even if this is arbitrary, can we give it some mnemonic?
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(check_alloca);
> +#endif
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> index a34e9290a699..25dd2a14560d 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> @@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_EFI_ARMSTUB) += -I$(srctree)/scripts/dtc/libfdt
> KBUILD_CFLAGS := $(cflags-y) -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING \
> -D__NO_FORTIFY \
> $(call cc-option,-ffreestanding) \
> - $(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector)
> + $(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector) \
> + $(DISABLE_STACKLEAK_PLUGIN)
>
> GCOV_PROFILE := n
> KASAN_SANITIZE := n
I believe we'll also need to do this for the KVM hyp code in arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/.
Thanks,
Mark.
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.
