linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 05/15] x86: Implement function

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, 16 Apr 2021 15:20:17 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] x86: Implement function_nocfi

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:14 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:06:17PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:03 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 02:49:23PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > > __nocfi only disables CFI checking in a function, the compiler still
> > > > changes function addresses to point to the CFI jump table, which is
> > > > why we need function_nocfi().
> > >
> > > So call it __func_addr() or get_function_addr() or so, so that at least
> > > it is clear what this does.
> > >
> >
> > This seems backwards to me.  If I do:
> >
> > extern void foo(some signature);
> >
> > then I would, perhaps naively, expect foo to be the actual symbol that
>
> I'm just reading the patch:
>
> ... The function_nocfi macro always returns the address of the
> + * actual function instead.
> + */
> +#define function_nocfi(x) ({                                           \
> +       void *addr;                                                     \
> +       asm("leaq " __stringify(x) "(%%rip), %0\n\t" : "=r" (addr));    \
> +       addr;
>
> so it does a rip-relative load into a reg which ends up with the function
> address.

This is horrible.

We made a mistake adapting the kernel to GCC's nonsensical stack
protector ABI, especially on 32-bit, instead of making GCC fix it.
Let's not repeat this with clang please.

Sami, I'm assuming that:

extern void func(void);

results in anything that takes a pointer to func getting a pointer to
some special magic descriptor instead of to func, so that:

void (*ptr)(void);
ptr = func;
ptr();

does the right thing.  Then void (*)(void) is no longer a raw pointer.  Fine.

But obviously there is code that needs real function pointers.  How
about making this a first-class feature, or at least hacking around it
more cleanly.  For example, what does this do:

char entry_whatever[];
wrmsrl(..., (unsigned long)entry_whatever);

or, alternatively,

extern void func() __attribute__((nocfi));

void (*ptr)(void);
ptr = func;  /* probably fails to compile -- invalid conversion */

(unsigned long)func /* returns the actual pointer */

func();  /* works like normal */

And maybe allow this too:

void (*ptr)(void) __attribute__((nocfi);
ptr = func;
ptr();  /* emits an unchecked call.  maybe warns, too.  anyone who
does this needs to be extremely careful. */

--Andy