kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v12 2/6] x86/entry: Add STACKLEAK erasing the kernel stack at the end of syscalls

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9db6b23e-e2da-8e95-40da-b26951848c8d@linux.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 00:12:49 +0300
From: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
 PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
 Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@....com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, "Dmitry V . Levin"
 <ldv@...linux.org>, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
 "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
 Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
 Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
 Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>, David Woodhouse
 <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
 Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
 Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>, Kyle Huey
 <me@...ehuey.com>, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
 Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
 Boris Lukashev <blukashev@...pervictus.com>,
 Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/6] x86/entry: Add STACKLEAK erasing the kernel stack
 at the end of syscalls

Hello Ingo,

Thanks a lot for the review!
I agree with your points. I'll fix the series and return with v13.

There are some comments/questions below.

On 18.05.2018 09:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com> wrote:
>> +	/*
>> +	 * It would be nice not to have p and boundary on the stack.
>> +	 * Setting the register specifier for them is the best we can do.
>> +	 */
>> +	register unsigned long p = current->thread.lowest_stack.val;
>> +	register unsigned long boundary = p & ~(THREAD_SIZE - 1);
> 
> Does the 'register' keyword actually have any effect on the generated code?

No, for gcc it doesn't give any effect for this code. I used it to show the
intention.

However, even if the compiler allocates 'p' and 'boundary' on stack, that will
not break the stack erasing.

Should I drop 'register'?

>> +	unsigned long poison = 0;
>> +	const unsigned long check_depth = STACKLEAK_POISON_CHECK_DEPTH /
>> +							sizeof(unsigned long);
> 
> Please don't break lines in such an ugly fashion!

Ok. I'll make it look like that:

	const unsigned long check_depth =
			STACKLEAK_POISON_CHECK_DEPTH / sizeof(unsigned long);


> Also, 'poison' is a very weird name for something that looks like an index.
> 
> Plus since it's bound by "check_depth" is the 'unsigned long' justified,
> or could it be 32-bit?

Thanks, I can turn both 'check_depth' and 'poison' (which I'll rename) into
'unsigned int'.

>> +	/* Reset the lowest_stack value for the next syscall */
>> +	current->thread.lowest_stack.val = current_top_of_stack() - 256;
> 
> Magic, unexplained '256' literal.

Here I'm choosing the point from which we'll start the poison search on the next
syscall in case 'lowest_stack' is not updated in track_stack().

Would you like if I use "current_top_of_stack() - THREAD_SIZE / 64" ?

Best regards,
Alexander
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.