[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191011153225.GL27757@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 16:32:26 +0100
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Paul Elliott <paul.elliott@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
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, Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kristina Martšenko <kristina.martsenko@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sudakshina Das <sudi.das@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/12] arm64: Basic Branch Target Identification
support
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:25:33AM -0400, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 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.
Ack, that's the intended rationale -- I also outlined this in the commit
message.
Does this sound reasonable?
Either way, I feel we should do this: any function in a PROT_BTI page
should have a suitable landing pad. There's no reason I can see why
a protection given to any other callback function should be omitted
for a signal handler.
Note, if the signal handler isn't in a PROT_BTI page then overriding
BTYPE here will not trigger a Branch Target exception.
I'm happy to drop a brief comment into the code also, once we're
agreed on what the code should be doing.
Cheers
---Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists