linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 01/12] 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]

Message-ID: <20200427204546.GA80713@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:45:46 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 01/12] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:21:14PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Also, since you mentioned the lack of redzoning, isn't it a bit dodgy
> allocating blindly out of the kmem_cache? It means we don't have a redzone
> or a guard page, so if you can trigger something like a recursion bug then
> could you scribble past the SCS before the main stack overflows? Would this
> clobber somebody else's SCS?

I agree that allocating from a kmem_cache isn't ideal for safety. It's a
compromise to reduce memory overhead.

> The vmap version that I asked Sami to drop
> is at least better in this regard, although the guard page is at the wrong
> end of the stack and we just hope that the allocation below us didn't pass
> VM_NO_GUARD. Looks like the same story for vmap stack :/

SCS grows up and the guard page is after the allocation, so how is it at
the wrong end? Am I missing something here?

> If we split the pointer in two (base, offset) then we could leave the
> base live in the thread_info, not require alignment of the stacks (which
> may allow for unconditional redzoning?) and then just update the offset
> value on context switch, which could be trivially checked as part of the
> existing stack overflow checking on kernel entry.

I sent out v13 with split pointers, but I'm not sure it's convenient to
add an overflow check to kernel_ventry where the VMAP_STACK check is
done. I suppose I could add a check to kernel_entry after we load x18
from tsk. Thoughts?

Sami