linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] [PATCH v2] AARCH64: Add gcc Shadow Call Stack support

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]

Message-ID: <bf34b523-8477-c18c-e076-e120051cb6a1@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 16:31:58 -0800
From:   Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH v2] AARCH64: Add gcc Shadow Call Stack support



On 2/28/22 14:35, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 11:37 PM Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
>>>> +#define __noscs __attribute__((__no_sanitize__("shadow-call-stack")))
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> Since both compilers have it, and I guess the `#ifdef` condition would
>>> work for both, could this be moved into `compiler_types.h` where the
>>> empty `__noscs` definition is, and remove the one from
>>> `compiler-clang.h`?
>>>
>> In the clang documentation I see __has_feature(shadow_call_stack) is
>> used to check if -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack is enabled, so I think
>> maybe it's fine to use "#ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK"
>> instead of "#if __has_attribute(__no_sanitize_address__)" here, then
>> move it to `compiler_types.h`.
> 
> Or simply add a #define for __noscs to include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> with appropriate guard and leave the existing #ifndef in
> include/linux/compiler_types.h as is.  I'd prefer that when the
> compilers differ in terms of feature detection since it's as explicit
> as possible.
> 

To make sure I understand correctly, that means I should keep
the current patch unchanged right?

Thanks,
Dan.