[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202004221047.3AEAECC1@keescook>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:51:02 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.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 v11 01/12] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 06:39:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:18:30PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:17:28PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > + * The shadow call stack is aligned to SCS_SIZE, and grows
> > > > + * upwards, so we can mask out the low bits to extract the base
> > > > + * when the task is not running.
> > > > + */
> > > > + return (void *)((unsigned long)task_scs(tsk) & ~(SCS_SIZE - 1));
> > >
> > > Could we avoid forcing this alignment it we stored the SCS pointer as a
> > > (base,offset) pair instead? That might be friendlier on the allocations
> > > later on.
> >
> > The idea is to avoid storing the current task's shadow stack address in
> > memory, which is why I would rather not store the base address either.
>
> What I mean is that, instead of storing the current shadow stack pointer,
> we instead store a base and an offset. We can still clear the base, as you
> do with the pointer today, and I don't see that the offset is useful to
> an attacker on its own.
>
> But more generally, is it really worthwhile to do this clearing at all? Can
> you (or Kees?) provide some justification for it, please? We don't do it
> for anything else, e.g. the pointer authentication keys, so something
> feels amiss here.
It's a hardening step to just reduce the lifetime of a valid address
exposed in memory. In fact, since there is a cache, I think it should be
wiped even in scs_release().
--
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.
