linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/18] arm64: implement Shadow Call Stack

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: <CABCJKue27Aba_MJqB68Bh282zyL=LSQSBXV5TAb-NfsOAqJRnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:35:49 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] arm64: implement Shadow Call Stack

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:23 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> I think scs_save() would better live in assembly in cpu_switch_to(),
> where we switch the stack and current. It shouldn't matter whether
> scs_load() is inlined or not, since the x18 value _should_ be invariant
> from the PoV of the task.

Note that there's also a call to scs_save in cpu_die, because the
current task's shadow stack pointer is only stored in x18 and we don't
want to lose it.

> We just need to add a TSK_TI_SCS to asm-offsets.c, and then insert a
> single LDR at the end:
>
>         mov     sp, x9
>         msr     sp_el0, x1
> #ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
>         ldr     x18, [x1, TSK_TI_SCS]
> #endif
>         ret

TSK_TI_SCS is already defined, so yes, we could move this to
cpu_switch_to. I would still prefer to have the overflow check that's
in scs_thread_switch though.

Sami