linux-kernel - Re: randomize_kstack: To init or not to init?

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: <CANpmjNN4OAA_DM_KNLGJah3fk-PaZktGjziiu8ztf6fevZy5ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Dec 2021 21:33:01 +0100
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: randomize_kstack: To init or not to init?

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 21:19, Segher Boessenkool
<segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 10:58:01AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > Clang supports CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_ZERO, which appears to be the
> > default since dcb7c0b9461c2, which is why this came on my radar. And
> > Clang also performs auto-init of allocas when auto-init is on
> > (https://reviews.llvm.org/D60548), with no way to skip. As far as I'm
> > aware, GCC 12's upcoming -ftrivial-auto-var-init= doesn't yet auto-init
> > allocas.
>
> The space allocated by alloca is not an automatic variable, so of course
> it is not affected by this compiler flag.  And it should not, this flag
> is explicitly for *small fixed-size* stack variables (initialising
> others can be much too expensive).
>
> >       C. Introduce a new __builtin_alloca_uninitialized().
>
> That is completely backwards.  That is the normal behaviour of alloca
> already.  Also you can get __builtin_alloca inserted by the compiler
> (for a variable length array for example), and you typically do not want
> those initialised either, for the same reasons.

You're right, if we're strict about it, initializing allocas is
technically out-of-scope of that feature.

So, option D: Add a param to control this, and probably it shouldn't
do it by default. Let's see how far that gets then.