linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 14/18] arm64: add __nocfi to functions that jump to a physical address

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABCJKuchDg74Md_He1nKgXKUf=pVEmiaVr_yJXB_yX+tKNhByA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 10:43:50 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/18] arm64: add __nocfi to functions that jump to a
 physical address

On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 4:54 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> [adding Ard for EFI runtime services bits]
>
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 04:32:12PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > Disable CFI checking for functions that switch to linear mapping and
> > make an indirect call to a physical address, since the compiler only
> > understands virtual addresses and the CFI check for such indirect calls
> > would always fail.
>
> What does physical vs virtual have to do with this? Does the address
> actually matter, or is this just a general thing that when calling an
> assembly function we won't have a trampoline that the caller expects?

No, this is about the actual address. The compiler-generated runtime
checks only know about EL1 virtual addresses, so if we switch to a
different address space, all indirect calls will trip CFI.

> I wonder if we need to do something with asmlinkage here, perhaps?
>
> I didn't spot anything in the seriues handling EFI runtime services
> calls, and I strongly suspect we need to do something for those, unless
> they're handled implicitly by something else.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 2 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/cpu-reset.h        | 8 ++++----
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c       | 2 +-
> >  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/06/donald-trump-save-america-pac-has-85-million-on-hand-ahead-of-midterms.html
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> > index 386b96400a57..d3cef9133539 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> > @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ static inline void cpu_install_idmap(void)
> >   * Atomically replaces the active TTBR1_EL1 PGD with a new VA-compatible PGD,
> >   * avoiding the possibility of conflicting TLB entries being allocated.
> >   */
> > -static inline void cpu_replace_ttbr1(pgd_t *pgdp)
> > +static inline void __nocfi cpu_replace_ttbr1(pgd_t *pgdp)
>
> Given these are inlines, what's the effect when these are inlined into a
> function that would normally use CFI? Does CFI get supressed for the
> whole function, or just the bit that got inlined?

Just for the bit that gets inlined.

> Is there an attribute that we could place on a function pointer to tell
> the compiler to not check calls via that pointer? If that existed we'd
> be able to scope this much more tightly.

There isn't, but I do agree that this would be a useful feature.

Sami