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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:22:19 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] lkdtm: Add CFI_BACKWARD to test ROP mitigations On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 03:19:02AM -0700, Dan Li wrote: > Hi, Kees, > Thanks for the rewrite. I tested this patch, and it works fine for > me except for a few minor comments below :) > > On 4/13/22 14:39, Kees Cook wrote: > > +/* The ultimate ROP gadget. */ > > +static noinline __no_ret_protection > > +void set_return_addr_unchecked(unsigned long *expected, unsigned long *addr) > > +{ > > + /* Use of volatile is to make sure final write isn't seen as a dead store. */ > > + unsigned long * volatile *ret_addr = (unsigned long **)__builtin_frame_address(0) + 1; > > + > > + /* Make sure we've found the right place on the stack before writing it. */ > > + if(*ret_addr == expected) > > + *ret_addr = (addr); > > + else > > + /* Check architecture, stack layout, or compiler behavior... */ > > + pr_warn("Eek: return address mismatch! %px != %px\n", > > + *ret_addr, addr); > > +} > > + > > +static noinline > > +void set_return_addr(unsigned long *expected, unsigned long *addr) > > +{ > > + /* Use of volatile is to make sure final write isn't seen as a dead store. */ > > + unsigned long * volatile *ret_addr = (unsigned long **)__builtin_frame_address(0) + 1; > > + > > + /* Make sure we've found the right place on the stack before writing it. */ > > + if(*ret_addr == expected) > > + *ret_addr = (addr); > > When PAC is enabled, I get a mismatch as follows: > > /kselftest_install/lkdtm # ./CFI_BACKWARD.sh > [ 182.120133] lkdtm: Performing direct entry CFI_BACKWARD > [ 182.120665] lkdtm: Attempting unchecked stack return address redirection ... > [ 182.122543] lkdtm: ok: redirected stack return address. > [ 182.123521] lkdtm: Attempting checked stack return address redirection ... > [ 182.123964] lkdtm: Eek: return address mismatch! bfff800008fa8014 != ffff800008fa8030 > [ 182.124502] lkdtm: ok: control flow unchanged. > CFI_BACKWARD: saw 'call trace:|ok: control flow unchanged': ok > > We may need to ignore the pac high bits of return address according > to TCR.T1SZ (or simply remove the high 16 bits before comparing). Oh! Hah, yes, I totally forgot that. Thanks for testing -- getting PAC emulation working in QEMU has eluded me. I think untagged_addr() will work yes? i.e.: if((untagged_addr(*ret_addr) == expected) > > > + else > > + /* Check architecture, stack layout, or compiler behavior... */ > > + pr_warn("Eek: return address mismatch! %px != %px\n", > > + *ret_addr, addr); > > According to the context, it might be "expected" here? > > pr_warn("Eek: return address mismatch! %px != %px\n", > *ret_addr, expected); > > I simply ignored the upper 16 bits, and tested it separately > in gcc/llvm 12 with SCS/PAC and all the four cases worked fine for me. Great! Do you have the PAC "Oops" text handy so I can include it in the commit log as an example of what should be expected? Thanks! -- Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists