[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <201910281250.25FBA8533@keescook>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 12:57:42 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/17] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:35:33PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 01:49:21PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > To keep the address of the currently active shadow stack out of
> > memory, the arm64 implementation clears this field when it loads x18
> > and saves the current value before a context switch. The generic code
> > doesn't expect the arch code to necessarily do so, but does allow it.
> > This requires us to use __scs_base() when accessing the base pointer
> > and to reset it in idle tasks before they're reused, hence
> > scs_task_reset().
>
> Ok. That'd be worth a comment somewhere, since it adds a number of
> things which would otherwise be unnecessary.
>
> IIUC this assumes an adversary who knows the address of a task's
> thread_info, and has an arbitrary-read (to extract the SCS base from
> thead_info) and an arbitrary-write (to modify the SCS area).
>
> Assuming that's the case, I don't think this buys much. If said
> adversary controls two userspace threads A and B, they only need to wait
> until A is context-switched out or in userspace, and read A's SCS base
> using B.
>
> Given that, I'd rather always store the SCS base in the thread_info, and
> simplify the rest of the code manipulating it.
I'd like to keep this as-is since it provides a temporal protection.
Having arbitrary kernel read and write at arbitrary time is a very
powerful attack primitive, and is, IMO, not very common. Many attacks
tend to be chains of bugs that give attackers narrow visibility in to the
kernel at specific moments. I would say this design is more about stopping
"current" from dumping thread_info (as there are many more opportunities
for current to see its own thread_info compared to arbitrary addresses
or another task's thread_info). As such, I think it's a reasonable
precaution to take.
--
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.
