linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] static_call,x86: Robustify trampoline patching

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 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]

Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 00:36:18 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] static_call,x86: Robustify trampoline patching

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 at 21:45, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 09:21:56PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> > That means we can support static calls on arm64 now without breaking
> > Clang CFI, and work on a solution for the redundant jumps on a more
> > relaxed schedule.
>
> Yes, arm64 has a 'problem' with having already merged the clang-cfi
> stuff :/
>
> I'm hoping the x86 solution can be an alternative CFI scheme, I'm
> starting to really hate this one. And I'm not at all convinced the
> proposed scheme is the best possible scheme given the constraints of
> kernel code. AFAICT it's a compromise made in userspace.

Your scheme only works with IBT: the value of %r11 is under the
adversary's control so it could just point it at 'foo+0x10' if it
wants to call foo indirectly, and circumvent the check. So without IBT
(or BTI), I think the check fundamentally belongs in the caller, not
in the callee.