linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] Function Granular KASLR

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 20:48:17 -0400
From:   "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] Function Granular KASLR

Hi -

> > We have relocated based on sections, not some subset of function
> > symbols accessible that way, partly because DWARF line- and DIE- based
> > probes can map to addresses some way away from function symbols, into
> > function interiors, or cloned/moved bits of optimized code.  It would
> > take some work to prove that function-symbol based heuristic
> > arithmetic would have just as much reach.
> 
> Interesting. Do you have an example handy? 

No, I'm afraid I don't have one that I know cannot possibly be
expressed by reference to a function symbol only.  I'd look at
systemtap (4.3) probe point lists like:

% stap -vL 'kernel.statement("*@...nel/*verif*.c:*")'
% stap -vL 'module("amdgpu").statement("*@...ecution*.c:*")'

which give an impression of computed PC addresses.

> It seems like something like that would reference the enclosing
> section, which means we can't just leave them out of the sysfs
> list... (but if such things never happen in the function-sections,
> then we *can* remove them...)

I'm not sure we can easily prove they can never happen there.

- FChE