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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=6atvH9fJk0jJcqksSQXZ6wFyAvZ1wsZ7UWsEN-soOTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Mar 2022 12:11:59 -0800
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.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 Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:32 PM Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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?

Yes.
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers