| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20160812203629.jxcmhser7xfij675@treble>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:36:29 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 50/51] x86/mm: move arch_within_stack_frames() to
usercopy.c
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 01:06:41PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:36:21AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> > When I tried to port arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder,
> >> > I got a nightmare include file "header soup" scenario when unwind.h was
> >> > included from thread_info.h. And anyway, I think thread_info.h isn't
> >> > really an appropriate place for this function. So move it to usercopy.c
> >> > instead.
> >> >
> >> > Since it relies on its parent's stack pointer, and the function is no
> >> > longer inlined, the arguments to the __builtin_frame_address() calls
> >> > have been incremented.
> >>
> >> Cool, looks good (minor change noted below). This patch might be a
> >> good place to drop this from mm/Makefile too:
> >>
> >> # Since __builtin_frame_address does work as used, disable the warning.
> >> CFLAGS_usercopy.o += $(call cc-disable-warning, frame-address)
> >>
> >> Since frame-address warnings have been disabled globally now since
> >> commit 124a3d88fa20 ("Disable "frame-address" warning").
> >
> > Ok, I'll do that with the next patch (51/51) which removes the
> > __builtin_frame_address() calls.
> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h | 46 ++++++++------------------------------
> >> > arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> >> > index 8b7c8d8e..fd849e6 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> >> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> >> > @@ -176,49 +176,21 @@ static inline unsigned long current_stack_pointer(void)
> >> > return sp;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > -/*
> >> > - * Walks up the stack frames to make sure that the specified object is
> >> > - * entirely contained by a single stack frame.
> >> > - *
> >> > - * Returns:
> >> > - * 1 if within a frame
> >> > - * -1 if placed across a frame boundary (or outside stack)
> >> > - * 0 unable to determine (no frame pointers, etc)
> >> > - */
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY
> >>
> >> This ifdef shouldn't be needed: the arch_within_stack_frames wasn't
> >> designed to depend on it.
> >>
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
> >> > +int arch_within_stack_frames(const void * const stack,
> >> > + const void * const stackend,
> >> > + const void *obj, unsigned long len);
> >> > +#else
> >> > static inline int arch_within_stack_frames(const void * const stack,
> >> > const void * const stackend,
> >> > const void *obj, unsigned long len)
> >> > {
> >> > -#if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER)
> >> > - const void *frame = NULL;
> >> > - const void *oldframe;
> >> > -
> >> > - oldframe = __builtin_frame_address(1);
> >> > - if (oldframe)
> >> > - frame = __builtin_frame_address(2);
> >> > - /*
> >> > - * low ----------------------------------------------> high
> >> > - * [saved bp][saved ip][args][local vars][saved bp][saved ip]
> >> > - * ^----------------^
> >> > - * allow copies only within here
> >> > - */
> >> > - while (stack <= frame && frame < stackend) {
> >> > - /*
> >> > - * If obj + len extends past the last frame, this
> >> > - * check won't pass and the next frame will be 0,
> >> > - * causing us to bail out and correctly report
> >> > - * the copy as invalid.
> >> > - */
> >> > - if (obj + len <= frame)
> >> > - return obj >= oldframe + 2 * sizeof(void *) ? 1 : -1;
> >> > - oldframe = frame;
> >> > - frame = *(const void * const *)frame;
> >> > - }
> >> > - return -1;
> >> > -#else
> >> > return 0;
> >> > -#endif
> >> > }
> >> > +#endif /* CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER */
> >> > +#endif /* CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY */
> >> > +
> >> >
> >> > #else /* !__ASSEMBLY__ */
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c b/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c
> >> > index b490878..96ce151 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c
> >> > +++ b/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c
> >> > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> >> >
> >> > #include <asm/word-at-a-time.h>
> >> > #include <linux/sched.h>
> >> > +#include <asm/unwind.h>
> >> >
> >> > /*
> >> > * We rely on the nested NMI work to allow atomic faults from the NMI path; the
> >> > @@ -34,3 +35,45 @@ copy_from_user_nmi(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n)
> >> > return ret;
> >> > }
> >> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(copy_from_user_nmi);
> >> > +
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY
> >>
> >> Same thing: no need to check CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY here: it should
> >> be checking CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER instead.
> >
> > Now that this function is no longer inlined and is instead compiled in
> > its own .c file, I was thinking that the tinyconfig folks would
> > appreciate not growing the text size if there's no reason to do so.
> > Keeping this #ifdef won't break anything, right?
>
> Hrm, well, I guess not, but it means if anyone else wants to use it
> they have to remove the ifdef. I guess I don't object that much. :P
Ah. Do you expect other uses for it?
> > Also I moved the CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER check to the header file so it
> > doesn't pollute the .c code.
>
> Right, but if FRAME_POINTER=n and HARDENED_USERCOPY=y you'll get a
> build error about it being both in the .h and the .c file, if I'm
> reading that correctly.
Oh, right.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists