linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] lkdtm: Fix execute_[user]

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

Date:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:07:47 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] lkdtm: Fix execute_[user]_location()

Hi Kees,

Le 16/10/2021 à 08:42, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 15/10/2021 à 23:31, Kees Cook a écrit :
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 07:50:01AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> execute_location() and execute_user_location() intent
>>> to copy do_nothing() text and execute it at a new location.
>>> However, at the time being it doesn't copy do_nothing() function
>>> but do_nothing() function descriptor which still points to the
>>> original text. So at the end it still executes do_nothing() at
>>> its original location allthough using a copied function descriptor.
>>>
>>> So, fix that by really copying do_nothing() text and build a new
>>> function descriptor by copying do_nothing() function descriptor and
>>> updating the target address with the new location.
>>>
>>> Also fix the displayed addresses by dereferencing do_nothing()
>>> function descriptor.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/misc/lkdtm/perms.c     | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>   include/asm-generic/sections.h |  5 +++++
>>>   2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/perms.c b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/perms.c
>>> index 5266dc28df6e..96b3ebfcb8ed 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/perms.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/perms.c
>>> @@ -44,19 +44,32 @@ static noinline void do_overwritten(void)
>>>       return;
>>>   }
>>> +static void *setup_function_descriptor(func_desc_t *fdesc, void *dst)
>>> +{
>>> +    memcpy(fdesc, do_nothing, sizeof(*fdesc));
>>> +    fdesc->addr = (unsigned long)dst;
>>> +    barrier();
>>> +
>>> +    return fdesc;
>>> +}
>>
>> How about collapsing the "have_function_descriptors()" check into
>> setup_function_descriptor()?
>>
>> static void *setup_function_descriptor(func_desc_t *fdesc, void *dst)
>> {
>>     if (__is_defined(HAVE_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS)) {
>>         memcpy(fdesc, do_nothing, sizeof(*fdesc));
>>         fdesc->addr = (unsigned long)dst;
>>         barrier();
>>         return fdesc;
>>     } else {
>>         return dst;
>>     }
>> }
> 
> Ok
> 

...

>>
>>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/sections.h 
>>> b/include/asm-generic/sections.h
>>> index 76163883c6ff..d225318538bd 100644
>>> --- a/include/asm-generic/sections.h
>>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/sections.h
>>> @@ -70,6 +70,11 @@ typedef struct {
>>>   } func_desc_t;
>>>   #endif
>>> +static inline bool have_function_descriptors(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    return __is_defined(HAVE_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   /* random extra sections (if any).  Override
>>>    * in asm/sections.h */
>>>   #ifndef arch_is_kernel_text
>>
>> This hunk seems like it should live in a separate patch.
>>
> 
> Ok I move it in a previous patch.


Do you have any additional feedback or comment on series v3 ?

What's the way forward, should it go via LKDTM tree or via powerpc tree 
or another tree ? I see there are neither Ack-by nor Reviewed-by for the 
last 2 patches.

Thanks
Christophe