[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZyaUfcPt3OHztjc_@fjasle.eu>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 22:07:09 +0100
From: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Morten Linderud <morten@...derud.pw>,
Haelwenn Monnier <contact@...odan.eu>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] output a valid shell script when running 'make
-n'
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 06:02:57PM +0200 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> This patch series lets 'make -n' output a shell script that can be
> used to build the kernel without any further use of make. For example:
>
> make defconfig
>
> # ensure some build prerequisites are built
> make prepare
>
> # generate build script
> make -n | tee build.sh
>
> # excecute build script
> bash -eux build.sh
>
> The purpose of this is to take a step towards defeating the insertion of
> backdoors at build time (see [1]). Some of the benefits of separating the
> build script from the build system are:
>
> - we can invoke make in a restricted environment (e.g. mostly read-only
> kernel tree),
>
> - we have an audit log of the exact commands that run during the build
> process; although it's true that the build script wouldn't be useful
> for either production or development builds (as it doesn't support
> incremental rebuilds or parallel builds), it would allow you to
> rebuild an existing kernel and compare the resulting binary for
> discrepancies to the original build,
>
> - the audit log can be stored (e.g. in git) and changes to it over time
> can themselves be audited (e.g. by looking at diffs),
>
> - there's a lot fewer places to hide malicious code in a straight-line
> shell script that makes minimal use of variables and helper functions.
> You also cannot inject fragments of Makefile code through environment
> variables (again, see [1]).
>
> Alternative ways to achieve some of the same things would be:
>
> - the existing compile_commands.json infrastructure; unfortunately this
> does not include most of the steps performed during a build (such as
> linking vmlinux) and does not really allow you to reproduce/verify the
> full build,
>
> - simply running something like strace -f -e trace=execve make; however,
> this also does not result in something that can be easily played back;
> at the very least it would need to be heavily filtered and processed
> to account for data passed in environment variables and things like
> temporary files used by the compiler.
>
> This implementation works as follows:
>
> - 'make -n' (AKA --dry-run) by default prints out the commands that make
> runs; this output is modified to be usable as a shell script,
>
> - we output 'make() { :; }' at the start of the script in order to make
> all 'make' invocations in the resulting build script no-ops (GNU Make
> will actually execute -- and print -- all recipe lines that include
> $(MAKE), even when invoked with -n).
>
> - we simplify the makefile rules in some cases to make the shell script
> more readable; for example, we don't need the logic that extracts
> dependencies from .c files (since that is only used by 'make' itself
> when determining what to rebuild) or the logic that generates .cmd
> files,
>
> This patch is WIP and may not produce a working shell script in all
> circumstances. For example, while plain 'make -n' works for me, other
> make targets (e.g. 'make -n htmldocs') are not at all guaranteed to
> produce meaningful output; certain kernel configs may also not work,
> especially those that rely on external tools like e.g. Rust.
Thanks for this patch set and all the thoughts laid out here in detail,
especially for the write-up in [1], too!
I think it is a good idea to work towards hardening the build system against
known and difficult to spot attacks. As the patch set integration needs a
complete 'make -n' script (at least for a "simple", defined config) to be
successful, I expect that it might become quite some work and patience, but I
think it is a meaningful goal.
In order to prevent "degradation" of Make rules after a possible integration,
we need some (automated) testers, otherwise we will loose all the efforts again.
Please give me yet some days for a first rough round through the patches.
Kind regards
Nicolas
>
> [1]: https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/04/17/3
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Testing-Flags
>
>
> Vegard
>
> ---
>
> Vegard Nossum (11):
> kbuild: ignore .config rule for make --always-make
> kbuild: document some prerequisites
> kbuild: pass KERNELVERSION and LOCALVERSION explicitly to
> setlocalversion
> kbuild: don't execute .ko recipe in --dry-run mode
> kbuild: execute modules.order recipe in --dry-run mode
> kbuild: set $dry_run when running in --dry-run mode
> kbuild: define 'make' as a no-op in --dry-run mode
> kbuild: make link-vmlinux.sh respect $dry_run
> kbuild: simplify commands in --dry-run mode
> kbuild: don't test for file presence in --dry-run mode
> kbuild: suppress echoing of commands in --dry-run mode
>
> Makefile | 28 +++++++++++++++++---
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile | 6 +++++
> scripts/Kbuild.include | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
> scripts/Makefile.build | 2 +-
> scripts/Makefile.modfinal | 9 +++++--
> scripts/Makefile.modpost | 8 ++++--
> scripts/Makefile.vmlinux | 22 ++++++++++++++--
> scripts/Makefile.vmlinux_o | 3 +++
> scripts/link-vmlinux.sh | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 9 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
--
epost|xmpp: nicolas@...sle.eu irc://oftc.net/nsc
↳ gpg: 18ed 52db e34f 860e e9fb c82b 7d97 0932 55a0 ce7f
-- frykten for herren er opphav til kunnskap --
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists