[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jL-J=VTmG4SnnXxFod4G=AxNL5mdeshEKs4yNWb4aYsFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:42:46 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
"Linux/m68k" <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib: Introduce test_stackinit module
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:52 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kees,
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:08 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > Adds test for stack initialization coverage. We have several build options
> > that control the level of stack variable initialization. This test lets us
> > visualize which options cover which cases, and provide tests for some of
> > the pathological padding conditions the compiler will sometimes fail to
> > initialize.
>
> With current upstream, using gcc Ubuntu 8.2.0-1ubuntu2~18.04, I get
> on m68k:
Thanks for testing this on other architectures!
> test_stackinit: u8_zero: stack fill missed target!?
Hmpf. That's frustrating. That implies that the leaf function is
assembled in such a way that the "leaking" memory address and the
"controlled" memory address on the stack end up in different
locations. I had a lot of problems with this before I unified my leaf
function. I wonder if some inlining is happening with the m68k
compiler that I haven't accounted for?
> Any idea what is wrong? I find the test code a bit hard to understand...
Yeah, there was a lot of repetition, so I tried to save my sanity and
build macros. The particular problem above is with the "test_..."'s
call of the "leaf_..." functions:
/* Fill stack with 0xFF. */ \
ignored = leaf_ ##name((unsigned long)&ignored, 1, \
FETCH_ARG_ ## which(zero)); \
/* Clear entire check buffer for later bit tests. */ \
memset(check_buf, 0x00, sizeof(check_buf)); \
/* Extract stack-defined variable contents. */ \
ignored = leaf_ ##name((unsigned long)&ignored, 0, \
FETCH_ARG_ ## which(zero)); \
those two leaf_* invocations should produce stack variables at the
same location on the stack:
var_type var INIT_ ## which ## _ ## init_level; \
\
target_start = &var; \
target_size = sizeof(var); \
/* \
* Keep this buffer around to make sure we've got a \
* stack frame of SOME kind... \
*/ \
memset(buf, (char)(sp && 0xff), sizeof(buf)); \
/* Fill variable with 0xFF. */ \
if (fill) { \
fill_start = &var; \
fill_size = sizeof(var); \
(note "target_start" and "fill_start" being assigned the location of
(in theory) the same stack location)
This gets checked later:
/* Validate that compiler lined up fill and target. */ \
if (!range_contains(fill_start, fill_size, \
target_start, target_size)) { \
pr_err(#name ": stack fill missed target!?\n"); \
pr_err(#name ": fill %zu wide\n", fill_size); \
pr_err(#name ": target offset by %d\n", \
(int)((ssize_t)(uintptr_t)fill_start - \
(ssize_t)(uintptr_t)target_start)); \
return 1; \
which is where you're seeing the report.
> Also, I see comments making assumptions that are not true:
>
> struct test_small_hole {
> size_t one;
> char two;
> /* 3 byte padding hole here. */
> int three;
> unsigned long four;
> };
>
> On m68k (and a few other architectures), integrals of 16-bit and larger
> are aligned to a 2-byte address, so the padding may be only a single byte.
Ah! Good point. I can update the comments, but the test should still
be valid (it just has a smaller hole).
Thanks again!
--
Kees Cook
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.
