linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 05/17] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)

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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:49:21 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.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>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.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>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/17] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 3:56 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > +#define SCS_SIZE     1024
>
> I think it'd be worth a comment on how this size was chosen. IIRC this
> empirical?

Correct. I'll add a comment.

> > +#define SCS_END_MAGIC        0xaf0194819b1635f6UL
>
> Keyboard smash? ... or is there a prize for whoever figures out the
> secret? ;)

It's a random number, so if someone figures out a secret in it,
they'll definitely deserve a prize. :)

> > +static inline void task_set_scs(struct task_struct *tsk, void *s)
> > +{
> > +     task_thread_info(tsk)->shadow_call_stack = s;
> > +}
>
> This should probably be named get and set, or have:
>
> #define task_scs(tsk)   (task_thread_info(tsk)->shadow_call_stack)
>
> ... which can have a trivial implementation as NULL for the !SCS case.

Sure, sounds good.

> For all the trivial wrappers you can put the implementation on the same
> line as the prototype. That makes it a bit easier to compare against the
> prototypes on the other side of the ifdeffery.
>
> e.g. this lot can be:
>
> static inline void *task_scs(struct task_struct *tsk) { return 0; }
> static inline void task_set_scs(struct task_struct *tsk, void *s) { }
> static inline void scs_init(void) { }

Agreed.

> > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> > index bcdf53125210..ae7ebe9f0586 100644
> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/livepatch.h>
> >  #include <linux/thread_info.h>
> >  #include <linux/stackleak.h>
> > +#include <linux/scs.h>
>
> Nit: alphabetical order, please (this should come before stackleak.h).

The includes in kernel/fork.c aren't in alphabetical order, so I just
added this to the end here.

> > +     retval = scs_prepare(p, node);
> > +     if (retval)
> > +             goto bad_fork_cleanup_thread;
>
> Can we please fold scs_prepare() into scs_task_init() and do this in
> dup_task_struct()? That way we set this up consistently in one place,
> where we're also allocating the regular stack.

Yes, that does sound cleaner. I'll change that.

> > +     scs_task_reset(idle);
>
> I'm a bit confused by this -- please see comments below on
> scs_task_reset().

> > +static inline void *__scs_base(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +{
> > +     return (void *)((uintptr_t)task_scs(tsk) & ~(SCS_SIZE - 1));
> > +}
>
> We only ever assign the base to task_scs(tsk), with the current live
> value being in a register that we don't read. Are we expecting arch code
> to keep this up-to-date with the register value?
>
> I would have expected that we just leave this as the base (as we do for
> the regular stack in the task struct), and it's down to arch code to
> save/restore the current value where necessary.
>
> Am I missing some caveat with that approach?

To keep the address of the currently active shadow stack out of
memory, the arm64 implementation clears this field when it loads x18
and saves the current value before a context switch. The generic code
doesn't expect the arch code to necessarily do so, but does allow it.
This requires us to use __scs_base() when accessing the base pointer
and to reset it in idle tasks before they're reused, hence
scs_task_reset().

> > +     BUILD_BUG_ON(SCS_SIZE > PAGE_SIZE);
>
> It's probably worth a comment on why we rely on SCS_SIZE <= PAGE_SIZE.

Ack.

> > +static inline unsigned long *scs_magic(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +{
> > +     return (unsigned long *)(__scs_base(tsk) + SCS_SIZE - sizeof(long));
>
> Slightly simpler as:
>
>         return (unsigned long *)(__scs_base(tsk) + SCS_SIZE) - 1;

Yes, that's a bit cleaner.

I'll fix these in v3. Thank you for the review!

Sami