linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86_64: Use relative per-cpu offsets

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: <712750e7-a00a-4573-8864-0c07286289e3@www.fastmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Nov 2021 10:12:28 -0800
From:   "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>
To:     "Brian Gerst" <brgerst@...il.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86_64: Use relative per-cpu offsets



On Sun, Nov 14, 2021, at 10:29 AM, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 6:03 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 11:54:19PM -0500, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> > On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 8:18 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2021, at 4:40 AM, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> > > > The per-cpu section is currently linked at virtual address 0, because
>> > > > older compilers hardcoded the stack protector canary value at a fixed
>> > > > offset from the start of the GS segment.  Use a standard relative offset
>> > > > as the GS base when the stack protector is disabled, or a newer compiler
>> > > > is used that supports a configurable location for the stack canary.
>> > >
>> > > Can you explain the benefit?  Also, I think we should consider dropping support for the fixed model like we did on x86_32.
>> >
>> > This patch probably makes more sense if we drop the fixed model, as
>> > that gets rid of alot of code that works around having to link the
>> > percpu section differently.
>>
>> Can someone spell out these benefits please? To me having per-cpu start
>> at 0 makes perfect sense, how does not having that make things better?
>
> The best reason is that the percpu section is currently not subject to
> KASLR.  It actually needs extra support to counter the effects of
> relocation.  There have also been a number of linker bugs over the
> years that have had to be worked around.
>
> If we were to decide to drop the fixed stack protector the diffstat
> would look something like:
>
>  arch/x86/Makefile                         |  19 ++--
>  arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c           |  12 ---
>  arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S                 |   2 +-
>  arch/x86/include/asm/percpu.h             |  22 -----
>  arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h          |  24 ++---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/stackprotector.h     |  13 +--
>  arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets_64.c          |   6 --
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c              |   8 +-
>  arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S                 |  11 ++-
>  arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c                  |   1 -
>  arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S             |  33 -------
>  arch/x86/tools/relocs.c                   | 143 +-----------------------------
>  arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S                   |  10 +--
>  scripts/gcc-x86_64-has-stack-protector.sh |   2 +-
>  14 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 271 deletions(-)
>

Ack.  We did this for 32-bit and got few complaints. Let’s finish the job.

> --
> Brian Gerst