[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191022162826.GC699@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 17:28:27 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 09:10:21AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> This change adds generic support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack, which
> uses a shadow stack to protect return addresses from being overwritten
> by an attacker. Details are available here:
>
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ShadowCallStack.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
> ---
> Makefile | 6 ++
> arch/Kconfig | 39 ++++++++
> include/linux/compiler-clang.h | 2 +
> include/linux/compiler_types.h | 4 +
> include/linux/scs.h | 88 ++++++++++++++++++
> init/init_task.c | 6 ++
> init/main.c | 3 +
> kernel/Makefile | 1 +
> kernel/fork.c | 9 ++
> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 +
> kernel/scs.c | 162 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 12 files changed, 323 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/scs.h
> create mode 100644 kernel/scs.c
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index ffd7a912fc46..e401fa500f62 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -846,6 +846,12 @@ ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -flive-patching=inline-clone)
> endif
>
> +ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack
> +DISABLE_SCS := -fno-sanitize=shadow-call-stack
> +export DISABLE_SCS
> +endif
I think it would be preferable to follow the example of CC_FLAGS_FTRACE
so that this can be filtered out, e.g.
ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
CFLAGS_SCS := -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(CFLAGS_SCS)
export CC_FLAGS_SCS
endif
... with removal being:
CFLAGS_REMOVE := $(CC_FLAGS_SCS)
... or:
CFLAGS_REMOVE_obj.o := $(CC_FLAGS_SCS)
That way you only need to define the flags once, so the enable and
disable falgs remain in sync by construction.
[...]
> +config ARCH_SUPPORTS_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> + bool
> + help
> + An architecture should select this if it supports Clang's Shadow
> + Call Stack, has asm/scs.h, and implements runtime support for shadow
> + stack switching.
> +
> +config SHADOW_CALL_STACK_VMAP
> + def_bool n
A bool is default n, so you can just say bool here.
> + depends on SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> + help
> + Use virtually mapped shadow call stacks. Selecting this option
> + provides better stack exhaustion protection, but increases per-thread
> + memory consumption as a full page is allocated for each shadow stack.
> +
> +choice
> + prompt "Return-oriented programming (ROP) protection"
> + default ROP_PROTECTION_NONE
> + help
> + This option controls kernel protections against return-oriented
> + programming (ROP) attacks.
Are we expecting more options here in future?
> +config ROP_PROTECTION_NONE
> + bool "None"
IIUC this is for the benefit of the kretprobes Kconfig.
I think it would be better to make that depend on !SHADOW_CALL_STACK, as
it's plausible that we can add a different ROP protection mechanism that
is compatible with kretprobes.
> +config SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> + bool "Clang Shadow Call Stack"
> + depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> + depends on CC_IS_CLANG && CLANG_VERSION >= 70000
Is there a reason for an explicit version check rather than a
CC_HAS_<feature> check? e.g. was this available but broken in prior
versions of clang?
[...]
> +#define SCS_GFP (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO)
Normally GFP_ is a prefix. For consistency, GFP_SCS would be preferable.
> +extern unsigned long init_shadow_call_stack[];
Do we need this exposed here? IIUC this is only assigned by assembly in
arch code.
[...]
> +void scs_set_init_magic(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> + scs_save(tsk);
> + scs_set_magic(tsk);
> + scs_load(tsk);
> +}
Can we initialize this at compile time instead?
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.
