linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 32/36] x86/boot/compressed: Reorganize zero-size section asserts

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: <202008211113.F872C40ED@keescook>
Date:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:19:06 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 32/36] x86/boot/compressed: Reorganize zero-size
 section asserts

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 09:47:55PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 04:08:16PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > For readability, move the zero-sized sections to the end after DISCARDS
> > and mark them NOLOAD for good measure.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.lds.S | 42 +++++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.lds.S
> > index 3c2ee9a5bf43..42dea70a5091 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.lds.S
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.lds.S
> > @@ -42,18 +42,16 @@ SECTIONS
> >  		*(.rodata.*)
> >  		_erodata = . ;
> >  	}
> > -	.rel.dyn : {
> > -		*(.rel.*)
> > -	}
> > -	.rela.dyn : {
> > -		*(.rela.*)
> > -	}
> > -	.got : {
> > -		*(.got)
> > -	}
> >  	.got.plt : {
> >  		*(.got.plt)
> >  	}
> > +	ASSERT(SIZEOF(.got.plt) == 0 ||
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +	       SIZEOF(.got.plt) == 0x18,
> > +#else
> > +	       SIZEOF(.got.plt) == 0xc,
> > +#endif
> > +	       "Unexpected GOT/PLT entries detected!")
> >  
> >  	.data :	{
> >  		_data = . ;
> > @@ -85,13 +83,23 @@ SECTIONS
> >  	ELF_DETAILS
> >  
> >  	DISCARDS
> > -}
> >  
> > -ASSERT(SIZEOF(.got) == 0, "Unexpected GOT entries detected!")
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > -ASSERT(SIZEOF(.got.plt) == 0 || SIZEOF(.got.plt) == 0x18, "Unexpected GOT/PLT entries detected!")
> > -#else
> > -ASSERT(SIZEOF(.got.plt) == 0 || SIZEOF(.got.plt) == 0xc, "Unexpected GOT/PLT entries detected!")
> > -#endif
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Sections that should stay zero sized, which is safer to
> > +	 * explicitly check instead of blindly discarding.
> > +	 */
> > +	.got (NOLOAD) : {
> > +		*(.got)
> > +	}
> > +	ASSERT(SIZEOF(.got) == 0, "Unexpected GOT entries detected!")
> >  
> > -ASSERT(SIZEOF(.rel.dyn) == 0 && SIZEOF(.rela.dyn) == 0, "Unexpected run-time relocations detected!")
> > +	/* ld.lld does not like .rel* sections being made "NOLOAD". */
> > +	.rel.dyn : {
> > +		*(.rel.*)
> > +	}
> > +	ASSERT(SIZEOF(.rel.dyn) == 0, "Unexpected run-time relocations (.rel) detected!")
> > +	.rela.dyn : {
> > +		*(.rela.*)
> > +	}
> > +	ASSERT(SIZEOF(.rela.dyn) == 0, "Unexpected run-time relocations (.rela) detected!")
> > +}
> > -- 
> > 2.25.1
> > 
> 
> There's no point in marking zero-size sections NOLOAD -- if the ASSERT's
> passed, they won't be present in the file at all anyway.

That's a good point, yes. I will adjust this.

> The only section for which there might be a point is .got.plt, which is
> non-empty on 32-bit, and only if it is first moved to the end. That
> saves a few bytes.

Yeah, also this. :) I will try it.

-- 
Kees Cook