linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 05/12] arm64: Basic Branch Target Identification support

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: <4e09ca54-f353-9448-64ed-4ba1e38c6ebc@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:25:33 -0400
From:   Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Kristina Martšenko <kristina.martsenko@....com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Paul Elliott <paul.elliott@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sudakshina Das <sudi.das@....com>,
        Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        Amit Kachhap <amit.kachhap@....com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/12] arm64: Basic Branch Target Identification
 support

On 10/11/19 11:10 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:44:33PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
>> @@ -730,6 +730,11 @@ static void setup_return
>>  	regs->regs[29] = (unsigned long)&user->next_frame->fp;
>>  	regs->pc = (unsigned long)ka->sa.sa_handler;
>>  
>> +	if (system_supports_bti()) {
>> +		regs->pstate &= ~PSR_BTYPE_MASK;
>> +		regs->pstate |= PSR_BTYPE_CALL;
>> +	}
>> +
> 
> I think we might need a comment as to what we're trying to ensure here.
> 
> I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that we'd generate a
> pristine pstate for a signal handler, and it's not clear to me that we
> must ensure the first instruction is a target instruction.

I think it makes sense to treat entry into a signal handler as a call.  Code
that has been compiled for BTI, and whose page has been marked with PROT_BTI,
will already have the pauth/bti markup at the beginning of the signal handler
function; we might as well verify that.

Otherwise sigaction becomes a hole by which an attacker can force execution to
start at any arbitrary address.


r~