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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210407213702.GB16569@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 22:37:02 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/6] stack: Optionally randomize kernel stack offset
 each syscall

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 04:23:44PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> This provides the ability for architectures to enable kernel stack base
> address offset randomization. This feature is controlled by the boot
> param "randomize_kstack_offset=on/off", with its default value set by
> CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_KSTACK_OFFSET_DEFAULT.
> 
> This feature is based on the original idea from the last public release
> of PaX's RANDKSTACK feature: https://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/randkstack.txt
> All the credit for the original idea goes to the PaX team. Note that
> the design and implementation of this upstream randomize_kstack_offset
> feature differs greatly from the RANDKSTACK feature (see below).

[...]

> diff --git a/include/linux/randomize_kstack.h b/include/linux/randomize_kstack.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..fd80fab663a9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/randomize_kstack.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +#ifndef _LINUX_RANDOMIZE_KSTACK_H
> +#define _LINUX_RANDOMIZE_KSTACK_H
> +
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/jump_label.h>
> +#include <linux/percpu-defs.h>
> +
> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_MAYBE(CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_KSTACK_OFFSET_DEFAULT,
> +			 randomize_kstack_offset);
> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(u32, kstack_offset);
> +
> +/*
> + * Do not use this anywhere else in the kernel. This is used here because
> + * it provides an arch-agnostic way to grow the stack with correct
> + * alignment. Also, since this use is being explicitly masked to a max of
> + * 10 bits, stack-clash style attacks are unlikely. For more details see
> + * "VLAs" in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> + */
> +void *__builtin_alloca(size_t size);
> +/*
> + * Use, at most, 10 bits of entropy. We explicitly cap this to keep the
> + * "VLA" from being unbounded (see above). 10 bits leaves enough room for
> + * per-arch offset masks to reduce entropy (by removing higher bits, since
> + * high entropy may overly constrain usable stack space), and for
> + * compiler/arch-specific stack alignment to remove the lower bits.
> + */
> +#define KSTACK_OFFSET_MAX(x)	((x) & 0x3FF)
> +
> +/*
> + * These macros must be used during syscall entry when interrupts and
> + * preempt are disabled, and after user registers have been stored to
> + * the stack.
> + */

This comment is out of date, as this is called from preemptible context on
arm64. Does that matter in terms of offset randomness?

Will

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ