[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWYx5nCtwGAqTZBWOB+aw+eEcnQhe6Sn1o+O356g7Km9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 22:26:57 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
mike.kravetz@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Control Flow Enforcement - Part (3)
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:41 AM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> This series introduces CET - Shadow stack
I think you should add some mitigation against sigreturn-oriented
programming. How about creating some special token on the shadow
stack that indicates the presence of a signal frame at a particular
address when delivering a signal and verifying and popping that token
in sigreturn? The token could be literally the address of the signal
frame, and you could make this unambiguous by failing sigreturn if CET
is on and the signal frame is in executable memory.
IOW, it would be a shame if sigreturn() itself became a convenient
CET-bypassing gadget.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists