[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200427204546.GA80713@google.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:45:46 -0700
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
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 Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:21:14PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Also, since you mentioned the lack of redzoning, isn't it a bit dodgy
> allocating blindly out of the kmem_cache? It means we don't have a redzone
> or a guard page, so if you can trigger something like a recursion bug then
> could you scribble past the SCS before the main stack overflows? Would this
> clobber somebody else's SCS?
I agree that allocating from a kmem_cache isn't ideal for safety. It's a
compromise to reduce memory overhead.
> The vmap version that I asked Sami to drop
> is at least better in this regard, although the guard page is at the wrong
> end of the stack and we just hope that the allocation below us didn't pass
> VM_NO_GUARD. Looks like the same story for vmap stack :/
SCS grows up and the guard page is after the allocation, so how is it at
the wrong end? Am I missing something here?
> If we split the pointer in two (base, offset) then we could leave the
> base live in the thread_info, not require alignment of the stacks (which
> may allow for unconditional redzoning?) and then just update the offset
> value on context switch, which could be trivially checked as part of the
> existing stack overflow checking on kernel entry.
I sent out v13 with split pointers, but I'm not sure it's convenient to
add an overflow check to kernel_ventry where the VMAP_STACK check is
done. I suppose I could add a check to kernel_entry after we load x18
from tsk. Thoughts?
Sami
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.
