| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220227031348.drbmkcmoqur53aay@treble>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 19:13:48 -0800
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, joao@...rdrivepizza.com, hjl.tools@...il.com,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org,
samitolvanen@...gle.com, mark.rutland@....com,
alyssa.milburn@...el.com, mbenes@...e.cz, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 34/39] objtool: Validate IBT assumptions
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:52:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
> @@ -380,6 +380,7 @@ static int decode_instructions(struct ob
> memset(insn, 0, sizeof(*insn));
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&insn->alts);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&insn->stack_ops);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&insn->call_node);
Is this needed? 'call_node' isn't actually a list head, otherwise this
would presumably be fixing a major bug.
> insn->sec = sec;
> insn->offset = offset;
> @@ -1176,6 +1177,14 @@ static int add_jump_destinations(struct
> unsigned long dest_off;
>
> for_each_insn(file, insn) {
> + if (insn->type == INSN_ENDBR && insn->func) {
> + if (insn->offset == insn->func->offset) {
> + file->nr_endbr++;
> + } else {
> + file->nr_endbr_int++;
> + }
> + }
> +
This doesn't have much to do with adding jump destinations. I'm
thinking this would fit better in decode_instructions() in the
sym_for_each_insn() loop.
> if (!is_static_jump(insn))
> continue;
>
> @@ -1192,10 +1201,14 @@ static int add_jump_destinations(struct
> } else if (insn->func) {
> /* internal or external sibling call (with reloc) */
> add_call_dest(file, insn, reloc->sym, true);
> - continue;
> +
> + dest_sec = reloc->sym->sec;
> + dest_off = reloc->sym->offset +
> + arch_dest_reloc_offset(reloc->addend);
> +
> } else if (reloc->sym->sec->idx) {
> dest_sec = reloc->sym->sec;
> - dest_off = reloc->sym->sym.st_value +
> + dest_off = reloc->sym->offset +
> arch_dest_reloc_offset(reloc->addend);
> } else {
> /* non-func asm code jumping to another file */
> @@ -1205,6 +1218,10 @@ static int add_jump_destinations(struct
> insn->jump_dest = find_insn(file, dest_sec, dest_off);
> if (!insn->jump_dest) {
>
> + /* external symbol */
> + if (!vmlinux && insn->func)
> + continue;
> +
> /*
> * This is a special case where an alt instruction
> * jumps past the end of the section. These are
> @@ -1219,6 +1236,16 @@ static int add_jump_destinations(struct
> return -1;
> }
>
> + if (ibt && insn->jump_dest->type == INSN_ENDBR &&
> + insn->jump_dest->func &&
> + insn->jump_dest->offset == insn->jump_dest->func->offset) {
> + if (reloc) {
> + WARN_FUNC("Direct RELOC jump to ENDBR", insn->sec, insn->offset);
> + } else {
> + WARN_FUNC("Direct IMM jump to ENDBR", insn->sec, insn->offset);
> + }
> + }
> +
I have several concerns about all the above (and corresponding changes
elsewhere), but it looks like this was moved to separate patches, for
ease of NACKing :-)
> /*
> * Cross-function jump.
> */
> @@ -1246,7 +1273,8 @@ static int add_jump_destinations(struct
> insn->jump_dest->func->pfunc = insn->func;
>
> } else if (insn->jump_dest->func->pfunc != insn->func->pfunc &&
> - insn->jump_dest->offset == insn->jump_dest->func->offset) {
> + ((insn->jump_dest->offset == insn->jump_dest->func->offset) ||
> + (insn->jump_dest->offset == insn->jump_dest->func->offset + 4))) {
> /* internal sibling call (without reloc) */
> add_call_dest(file, insn, insn->jump_dest->func, true);
How about something more precise/readable/portable:
static bool same_func(struct instruction *insn1, struct instruction *insn2)
{
return insn1->func->pfunc == insn2->func->pfunc;
}
static bool is_first_func_insn(struct instruction *insn)
{
return insn->offset == insn->func->offset ||
(insn->type == INSN_ENDBR &&
insn->offset == insn->func->offset + insn->len);
}
...
} else if (!same_func(insn, insn->jump_dest) &&
is_first_func_insn(insn->jump_dest))
> +static void validate_ibt_insn(struct objtool_file *file, struct instruction *insn);
I'd rather avoid forward declares and stay with the existing convention.
> +
> /*
> * Follow the branch starting at the given instruction, and recursively follow
> * any other branches (jumps). Meanwhile, track the frame pointer state at
> @@ -3101,6 +3164,17 @@ static int validate_branch(struct objtoo
>
> if (insn->hint) {
> state.cfi = *insn->cfi;
> + if (ibt) {
> + struct symbol *sym;
> +
> + if (insn->cfi->type == UNWIND_HINT_TYPE_REGS_PARTIAL &&
> + (sym = find_symbol_by_offset(insn->sec, insn->offset)) &&
> + insn->type != INSN_ENDBR && !insn->noendbr) {
> + WARN_FUNC("IRET_REGS hint without ENDBR: %s",
> + insn->sec, insn->offset,
> + sym->name);
> + }
No need to print sym->name here, WARN_FUNC() already does it?
> + }
> } else {
> /* XXX track if we actually changed state.cfi */
>
> @@ -3260,7 +3334,12 @@ static int validate_branch(struct objtoo
> state.df = false;
> break;
>
> + case INSN_NOP:
> + break;
> +
> default:
> + if (ibt)
> + validate_ibt_insn(file, insn);
This is kind of subtle. It would be more robust/clear to move this call
out of the switch statement and check explicitly for the exclusion of
jump/call instructions from within validate_ibt_insn().
> break;
> }
>
> @@ -3506,6 +3585,130 @@ static int validate_functions(struct obj
> return warnings;
> }
>
> +static struct instruction *
> +validate_ibt_reloc(struct objtool_file *file, struct reloc *reloc)
> +{
> + struct instruction *dest;
> + struct section *sec;
> + unsigned long off;
> +
> + sec = reloc->sym->sec;
> + off = reloc->sym->offset + reloc->addend;
This math assumes non-PC-relative. If it's R_X86_64_PC32 or
R_X86_64_PLT32 then it needs +4 added.
There are actually a few cases of this in startup_64(). Those are
harmless, but there might conceivably be other code which isn't?
> +
> + dest = find_insn(file, sec, off);
> + if (!dest)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (dest->type == INSN_ENDBR)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (reloc->sym->static_call_tramp)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + return dest;
> +}
> +
> +static void warn_noendbr(const char *msg, struct section *sec, unsigned long offset,
> + struct instruction *target)
> +{
> + WARN_FUNC("%srelocation to !ENDBR: %s+0x%lx", sec, offset, msg,
> + target->func ? target->func->name : target->sec->name,
> + target->func ? target->offset - target->func->offset : target->offset);
> +}
> +
> +static void validate_ibt_target(struct objtool_file *file, struct instruction *insn,
> + struct instruction *target)
> +{
> + if (target->func && target->func == insn->func) {
(Here and elsewhere) Instead of 'target' can we call it 'dest' for
consistency with existing code?
> + /*
> + * Anything from->to self is either _THIS_IP_ or IRET-to-self.
> + *
> + * There is no sane way to annotate _THIS_IP_ since the compiler treats the
> + * relocation as a constant and is happy to fold in offsets, skewing any
> + * annotation we do, leading to vast amounts of false-positives.
> + *
> + * There's also compiler generated _THIS_IP_ through KCOV and
> + * such which we have no hope of annotating.
> + *
> + * As such, blanked accept self-references without issue.
"blanket"
> + */
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Annotated non-control flow target.
> + */
> + if (target->noendbr)
> + return;
I don't think the comment really adds anything. What's a "non-control
flow target" anyway...
> +
> + warn_noendbr("", insn->sec, insn->offset, target);
> +}
> +
> +static void validate_ibt_insn(struct objtool_file *file, struct instruction *insn)
> +{
> + struct reloc *reloc = insn_reloc(file, insn);
> + struct instruction *target;
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + if (!reloc)
> + return;
> +
> + target = validate_ibt_reloc(file, reloc);
> + if (target)
> + validate_ibt_target(file, insn, target);
> +
> + reloc = find_reloc_by_dest_range(file->elf, insn->sec, reloc->offset + 1,
> + (insn->offset + insn->len) - (reloc->offset + 1));
> + }
I'm confused about what this loop is trying to do. Why would an
instruction have more than one reloc? It at least needs a comment.
Also a proper for() loop would be easier to follow:
for (reloc = insn_reloc(file, insn);
reloc;
reloc = find_reloc_by_dest_range(file->elf, insn->sec,
reloc->offset + 1,
(insn->offset + insn->len) - (reloc->offset + 1)) {
> +}
> +
> +static int validate_ibt(struct objtool_file *file)
> +{
> + struct section *sec;
> + struct reloc *reloc;
> +
> + for_each_sec(file, sec) {
> + bool is_data;
> +
> + /* already done in validate_branch() */
> + if (sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (!sec->reloc)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (!strncmp(sec->name, ".orc", 4))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (!strncmp(sec->name, ".discard", 8))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (!strncmp(sec->name, ".debug", 6))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (!strcmp(sec->name, "_error_injection_whitelist"))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (!strcmp(sec->name, "_kprobe_blacklist"))
> + continue;
> +
> + is_data = strstr(sec->name, ".data") || strstr(sec->name, ".rodata");
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(reloc, &sec->reloc->reloc_list, list) {
> + struct instruction *target;
> +
> + target = validate_ibt_reloc(file, reloc);
> + if (is_data && target && !target->noendbr) {
> + warn_noendbr("data ", reloc->sym->sec,
> + reloc->sym->offset + reloc->addend,
Another case where the addend math would be wrong if it were
pc-relative. Not sure if that's possible here or not.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists