[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180504110907.c2dw33kjmyybso6t@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 12:09:08 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.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
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:33:38PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> Hello Mark and Laura,
>
> Let me join the discussion. Mark, thanks for your feedback!
>
> On 03.05.2018 10:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I've disabled KASAN instrumentation for that file on x86 because erase_kstack()
> intentionally writes to the stack and causes KASAN false positive reports.
>
> But I didn't see any conflicts with other types of instrumentation that you
> mentioned.
The rationale is that any of these can result in implicit calls to C
functions at arbitrary points during erase_kstack(). That could
interfere with the search for poison, and/or leave data on the stack
which is not erased.
They won't result in hard failures, as KASAN would, but we should
probably avoid them regardless.
[...]
> >> +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.
>
> I would be afraid to change the meaning of end_of_stack()... Currently it
> considers that magic long as usable (include/linux/sched/task_stack.h):
>
> #define task_stack_end_corrupted(task) \
> (*(end_of_stack(task)) != STACK_END_MAGIC)
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I should mention that erase_kstack() can be called from x86 trampoline stack.
> That's why the boundary is calculated from the lowest_stack.
Ok. Under what circumstances does that happen?
It seems a little scary that curent::thread::lowest_stack might not be
on current's task stack. Is that reset when transitioning to/from the
trampoile stack?
[...]
> >> +#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?
>
> It's just a reasonable number. We can introduce a macro for it.
I'm just not sure I see the point in the offset, given things like
VMAP_STACK exist. BUG_ON() handling will likely require *more* than 256
bytes of stack, so it seems superfluous, as we'd be relying on stack
overflow detection at that point.
I can see that we should take the CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK offset
into account, though.
> >> +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/.
>
> Could you please give more details on that? Why STACKLEAK breaks it?
In the hyp/EL2 exception level, we only map the hyp text, and not the
rest of the kernel. So erase_kstack and check_alloca won't be mapped,
and attempt to branch to them will fault.
Even if it were mapped, things like BUG_ON(), get_current(), etc do not
work at hyp.
Additionally, the hyp code is mapped as a different virtual address from
the rest of the kernel, so if any of the STACKLEAK code happens to use
an absolute address, this will not work correctly.
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.
