linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/boot: Check that there are no runtime relocations

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: <20200526171340.pdbautbix5ygdvgp@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 10:13:40 -0700
From:   Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Golovin <dima@...ovin.in>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/boot: Check that there are no runtime
 relocations


On 2020-05-26, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:11:56AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:59, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
>> >  # Compressed kernel should be built as PIE since it may be loaded at any
>> >  # address by the bootloader.
>> > -KBUILD_LDFLAGS += $(call ld-option, -pie) $(call ld-option, --no-dynamic-linker)
>> > +KBUILD_LDFLAGS += -pie $(call ld-option, --no-dynamic-linker)
>>
>> Do we still need -pie linking with these changes applied?
>>
>
>I think it's currently not strictly necessary -- eg the 64bit kernel
>doesn't get linked as pie right now with LLD or old binutils. However,
>it is safer to do so to ensure that the result remains PIC with future
>versions of the linker. There are linker optimizations that can convert
>certain PIC instructions when PIE is disabled. While I think they
>currently all focus on eliminating indirection through the GOT (and thus
>wouldn't be applicable any more),

There are 3 forms described by x86-64 psABI B.2 Optimize GOTPCRELX Relocations

(1) movq foo@...PCREL(%rip), %reg -> leaq foo(%rip), %reg
(2) call *foo@...PCREL(%rip) -> nop; call foo
(3) jmp *foo@...PCREL(%rip) -> jmp foo; nop

ld.bfd and gold perform (1) even for R_X86_64_GOTPCREL. LLD requires R_X86_64_[REX_]GOTPCRELX

>it's easy to imagine that they could
>get extended to, for eg, convert
>	leaq	foo(%rip), %rax
>to
>	movl	$foo, %eax
>with some nop padding, etc.

Not with NOP padding, but probably with instruction prefixes. It is
unclear the rewriting will be beneficial. Rewriting instructions definitely requires a
dedicated relocation type like R_X86_64_[REX_]GOTPCRELX.

>Also, the relocation check that's being added here would only work with
>PIE linking.