linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] x86: Compile-time asm code validation

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

Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:10:30 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] x86: Compile-time asm code validation

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 03:10 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> > C would definitely make more sense when analyzing object code.  In fact,
> > asmvalidate is written in C.  But then I guess we'd have to re-implement
> > the .cfi stuff and populate the DWARF sections manually instead of
> > letting the assembler do it.
> 
> Was doing all this directly in the assembler considered?  That is,
> e.g., add some knob that makes it error/warn in the same conditions
> you're making the validator catch.  For tail calls, you'd e.g., add
> some  new ".nonlocal" directive that you'd use to whitelist the
> following jump.  And then if it's possible run a CFI generator
> as a separate step over the source, it sounds like it should also
> be possible to have the assembler do it instead too (again with
> some new high level directive to trigger/help it).

In general I think doing these types of things in the assembler would be
a good idea.  Missing or inaccurate debug data for asm code seems to be
a common problem for other projects as well.  As Andy pointed out,
they're doing similar things in musl [1].  So it might be useful to add
an option to the assembler which validates that the code conforms to
certain structural rules, and then inserts frame pointer and/or .cfi
directives.

That said, the kernel has much more custom features than other projects.
There are some sneaky macros, like _ASM_EXTABLE and ALTERNATIVE, which
hide code in various sections.  Unless we're able to somehow either stop
using these macros or isolate them to a few places, I doubt that such a
general purpose assembler option would work.

[1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/05/31/5

-- 
Josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/