linux-hardening - Re: __randomize

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:26:51 -0600
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: __randomize_layout;



On March 27, 2024 9:21:59 AM MDT, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
>This e-mail is to check you on whether that __randomize_layout can shuffle the
>fields inside that nested union/structure. I tried some experiments, and in a
>few kernel builds I saw the whole block move to different offsets, but the order
>of x86_vendor, x86, x86_model, and x86_reserved was preserved.

Yes, this is an intentional behavior: __randomize_layout will only apply to the struct it is attached to, and is not enabled for any substructs (anonymous or otherwise).

>But experiments aren't proof. Nor defense against future versions of
>scripts/gcc-plugins/randomize_layout_plugin.c becoming smarter or
>more aggressive about changing layout.

The behavior is also supported natively by Clang -- neither implementation is likely to ever change its treatment of substructs as it would kind of cause chaos.

So you're all good! :)

-- 
Kees Cook