linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] stackleak: Register the 'stackleak

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]

Message-ID: <e1259720-423c-c1ca-1fe5-b9ef89ad19a3@linux.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:25:01 +0300
From:   Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@....com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        amonakov@...ras.ru, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        gcc@....gnu.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] stackleak: Register the 'stackleak_cleanup' pass
 before the 'mach' pass

On 30.11.2018 20:12, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 9:09 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:20 AM Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently the 'stackleak_cleanup' pass deleting a CALL insn is executed
>>> after the 'reload' pass. That allows gcc to do some weird optimization in
>>> function prologues and epilogues, which are generated later [1].
>>>
>>> Let's avoid that by registering the 'stackleak_cleanup' pass before
>>> the 'mach' pass, which performs the machine dependent code transformations.
>>> It's the moment when the stack frame size is final and function prologues
>>> and epilogues are already generated.
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/11/23/2
>>>
>>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
>>
>> Thanks, applied!
> 
> Eek, no, this is breaking my build badly:
> 
> *** WARNING *** there are active plugins, do not report this as a bug
> unless you can reproduce it without enabling any plugins.
> Event                            | Plugins
> PLUGIN_START_UNIT                | stackleak_plugin
> kernel/exit.c: In function ‘release_task’:
> kernel/exit.c:228:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
>  }
> 
> Failing with:
> 
> gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0

I've done debugging of gcc with gdb and now understand my mistake.

It turned out that I register the 'stackleak_cleanup' pass deleting CALL insn
for that particular moment when the control flow graph is inconsistent.

That's what the machine-specific reorg passes do on various architectures:

  /* We are freeing block_for_insn in the toplev to keep compatibility
     with old MDEP_REORGS that are not CFG based.  Recompute it now.  */
  compute_bb_for_insn ();

So recomputing basic block info for insns before calling delete_insn_and_edges()
fixes the issue.

But I think it's better to register the 'stackleak_cleanup' pass just one pass
earlier -- before the '*free_cfg' pass. I'll double check it for different
versions of gcc on all supported architectures and return with a new patch.

Best regards,
Alexander