linux-hardening - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/21] cfi: Add type helper macros

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 16 May 2022 09:04:44 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/21] cfi: Add type helper macros

On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 2:49 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 01:21:45PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > With CONFIG_CFI_CLANG, assembly functions called indirectly
> > from C code must be annotated with type identifiers to pass CFI
> > checking. The compiler emits a __kcfi_typeid_<function> symbol for
> > each address-taken function declaration in C, which contains the
> > expected type identifier. Add typed versions of SYM_FUNC_START and
> > SYM_FUNC_START_ALIAS, which emit the type identifier before the
> > function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
>
> And the reason to not make this change universally (i.e. directly in
> SYM_FUNC_START) is to minimize how many of these symbol annotations get
> emitted? (And to more directly indicate which asm is called indirectly?)

The reason not to add this to SYM_FUNC_START is that the compiler
doesn't emit the type symbols for all functions. It currently emits
them for all address-taken function declarations in each translation
unit. We could potentially further limit this by emitting them only
for function declarations with a specific attribute, for example, but
that's something we can optimize later.

> What happens if an asm function is called indirectly and it doesn't have
> this annotation?

It will fail the CFI check.

> (Is this case detectable at compile-time?)

It's not. I'll update the commit message in the next version to
clarify these points.

Sami