[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1530025017.27091.1.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:56:57 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
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 Mon, 2018-06-25 at 22:26 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 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
I will look into that.
Thanks,
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists