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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:08:17 -0500
From:   Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>
Cc:     kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
        "AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        park jinbum <jinb.park7@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, spender@...ecurity.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins: Add structleak for more stack
 initialization

On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 15:24 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:03:14AM +0100, PaX Team wrote:
> > On 13 Jan 2017 at 14:02, Kees Cook wrote:
> > 
> > > +config GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_VERBOSE
> > > +	bool "Report initialized variables"
> > > +	depends on GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK
> > > +	depends on !COMPILE_TEST
> > > +	help
> > > +	  This option will cause a warning to be printed each
> > > time the
> > > +	  structleak plugin finds a variable it thinks needs to
> > > be
> > > +	  initialized. Since not all existing initializers are
> > > detected
> > > +	  by the plugin, this can produce false positive
> > > warnings.
> > 
> > there are no false positives, a variable either has a constructor or
> > it does not ;)
> 
> ... or it has no constructor, but is clobbered by a memset before it
> is
> possibly copied. ;)
> 
> For example:
> 
> arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c: In function 'do_fpsimd_exc':
> arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c:106:12: note: userspace variable will be
> forcibly initialized
>   siginfo_t info;
> 
> ... where the code looks like:
> 
> void do_fpsimd_exc(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> 	siginfo_t info;
> 	unsigned int si_code = 0;
> 
> 	if (esr & FPEXC_IOF)
> 		si_code = FPE_FLTINV;
> 	else if (esr & FPEXC_DZF)
> 		si_code = FPE_FLTDIV;
> 	else if (esr & FPEXC_OFF)
> 		si_code = FPE_FLTOVF;
> 	else if (esr & FPEXC_UFF)
> 		si_code = FPE_FLTUND;
> 	else if (esr & FPEXC_IXF)
> 		si_code = FPE_FLTRES;
> 
> 	memset(&info, 0, sizeof(info));
> 	info.si_signo = SIGFPE;
> 	info.si_code = si_code;
> 	info.si_addr = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs);
> 
> 	send_sig_info(SIGFPE, &info, current);
> }
> 
> ... so it's clear to a human that info is initialised prior to use,
> though not by an explicit field initializer.

It's obvious to the compiler too, not just a human. The compiler can
optimize it out when it's so clearly not required, although translation
units will get in the way without LTO. There's existing sophisticated
analysis for automatic initialization with full coverage. That's part of
why I think it makes sense to have a toggle for heuristics vs. full
coverage (incl. non-function-scope locals, that's just a heuristic too).

> > > +/* unused C type flag in all versions 4.5-6 */
> > > +#define TYPE_USERSPACE(TYPE) TYPE_LANG_FLAG_5(TYPE)
> > 
> > FYI, this is a sort of abuse/hack of tree flags and should not be
> > implemented this
> > way in the upstream kernel as it's a finite resource and needs
> > careful verification
> > against all supported gcc versions (these flags are meant for
> > language fronteds, i
> > kinda got lucky to have a few of them unusued but it's not a robust
> > future-proof
> > approach). instead an attribute should be used to mark these types.
> > whether that
> > can/should be __user itself is a good question since that's another
> > hack where the
> > plugin 'hijacks' a sparse address space atttribute (for which gcc
> > 4.6+ has its own
> > facilities and that the checker gcc plugin makes use of thus it's
> > not compatible
> > with structleak as is).
> 
> To me, it seems that the __user annotation can only be an indicator of
> an issue by chance. We have structures with __user pointers in structs
> that will never be copied to userspace, and conversely we have structs
> that don't contain a __user field, but will be copied to userspace.
> 
> Maybe it happens that structs in more complex systems are more likely
> to
> contain some __user pointer. Was that part of the rationale?
> 
> I wonder if there's any analysis we can do of data passing into
> copy_to_user() and friends. I guess we can't follow the data flow
> across
> compilation units, but we might be able to follow it well enough if we
> added a new attribute that described whether data was to be copied to
> userspace.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (867 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists