linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/10] x86/cet: Add arch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 8 Jun 2018 05:17:38 -0700
From:   "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        mike.kravetz@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] x86/cet: Add arch_prctl functions for shadow stack

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:22 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 3:02 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:33 PM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 11:48 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >>> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:41 AM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > The following operations are provided.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > ARCH_CET_STATUS:
>> >>> > >         return the current CET status
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > ARCH_CET_DISABLE:
>> >>> > >         disable CET features
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > ARCH_CET_LOCK:
>> >>> > >         lock out CET features
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > ARCH_CET_EXEC:
>> >>> > >         set CET features for exec()
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > ARCH_CET_ALLOC_SHSTK:
>> >>> > >         allocate a new shadow stack
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > ARCH_CET_PUSH_SHSTK:
>> >>> > >         put a return address on shadow stack
>> >>> > >
>>
>> >> And why do we need ARCH_CET_EXEC?
>> >>
>> >> For background, I really really dislike adding new state that persists
>> >> across exec().  It's nice to get as close to a clean slate as possible
>> >> after exec() so that programs can run in a predictable environment.
>> >> exec() is also a security boundary, and anything a task can do to
>> >> affect itself after exec() needs to have its security implications
>> >> considered very carefully.  (As a trivial example, you should not be
>> >> able to use cetcmd ... sudo [malicious options here] to cause sudo to
>> >> run with CET off and then try to exploit it via the malicious options.
>> >>
>> >> If a shutoff is needed for testing, how about teaching ld.so to parse
>> >> LD_CET=no or similar and protect it the same way as LD_PRELOAD is
>> >> protected.  Or just do LD_PRELOAD=/lib/libdoesntsupportcet.so.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I will take a look.
>>
>> We can use LD_CET to turn off CET.   Since most of legacy binaries
>> are compatible with shadow stack,  ARCH_CET_EXEC can be used
>> to turn on shadow stack on legacy binaries:
>
> Is there any reason you can't use LD_CET=force to do it for
> dynamically linked binaries?

We need to enable shadow stack from the start.  Otherwise function
return will fail when returning from callee with shadow stack to caller
without shadow stack.

> I find it quite hard to believe that forcibly CET-ifying a legacy
> statically linked binary is a good idea.

We'd like to provide protection as much as we can.

-- 
H.J.