linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] lkdtm: Add Shadow Call Stack tests

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: <48268e7c-a912-c648-be69-b5e41639bf3e@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Mar 2022 07:01:18 -0800
From:   Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
        luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com, elver@...gle.com,
        mark.rutland@....com, masahiroy@...nel.org, ojeda@...nel.org,
        nathan@...nel.org, npiggin@...il.com, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
        samitolvanen@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        will@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] lkdtm: Add Shadow Call Stack tests



On 3/4/22 06:54, Dan Li wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/3/22 11:09, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 10:42:45AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> Though, having the IS_ENABLED in there makes me wonder if this test
>>> should instead be made _survivable_ on failure. Something like this,
>>> completely untested:
>>>
>>>
>>> And we should, actually, be able to make the "set_lr" functions be
>>> arch-specific, leaving the test itself arch-agnostic....
>>
>> Yeah, as a tested example, this works for x86_64, and based on what you
>> had, I'd expect it to work on arm64 too:
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> static __attribute__((noinline))
>> void set_return_addr(unsigned long *expected, unsigned long *addr)
>> {
>>      /* Use of volatile is to make sure final write isn't seen as a dead store. */
>>      unsigned long * volatile *ret_addr = (unsigned long **)__builtin_frame_address(0) + 1;
>>
>>      /* Make sure we've found the right place on the stack before writing it. */
>>      if (*ret_addr == expected)
>>          *ret_addr = addr;
>> }
>>
>> volatile int force_label;
>> int main(void)
>> {
>>      do {
>>          /* Keep labels in scope. */
>>          if (force_label)
>>              goto normal;
>>          if (force_label)
>>              goto redirected;
>>
>>          set_return_addr(&&normal, &&redirected);
>> normal:
>>          printf("I should be skipped\n");
>>          break;
> 
>  From the assembly code, it seems that "&&normal" does't always equal
> to the address of label "normal" when we use clang with -O2.
> 
>> redirected:
>>          printf("Redirected\n");
>>      } while (0);
>>
> 
> The address of "&&redirected" may appear in the middle of the assembly
> instructions of the printf. If we unconditionally jump to "&&normal",> it may crash directly because x0 is not set correctly.

Sorry, it should be:
The address of "&&redirected" may appear in the middle of the assembly
instructions of the printf. If we unconditionally jump to "&&redirected",
it may crash directly because x0 of printf is not set correctly.

Thanks,
Dan.
> 
>>      return 0;
>> }
>>
>>
>> It does _not_ work under Clang, though, which I'm still looking at.
>>
> 
> AFAICT, maybe we could specify -O0 optimization to bypass this.
> 
> 
> BTW:
> Occasionally found, the following code works correctly, but i think
> it doesn't solve the issue :)
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> static __attribute__((noinline))
> void set_return_addr(unsigned long *expected, unsigned long *addr)
> {
>      /* Use of volatile is to make sure final write isn't seen as a dead store. */
>      unsigned long * volatile *ret_addr = (unsigned long **)__builtin_frame_address(0) + 1;
> 
>      /* Make sure we've found the right place on the stack before writing it. */
> //    if (*ret_addr == expected)
>          *ret_addr = addr;
> }
> volatile int force_label;
> int main(void)
> {
>      do {
>          /* Keep labels in scope. */
>          if (force_label)
>              goto normal;
>          if (force_label)
>              goto redirected;
> 
>          set_return_addr(&&normal, &&redirected);
> normal:
>          printf("I should be skipped\n");
>          break;
> 
> redirected:
>          printf("Redirected\n");
>          printf("\n");                //add a new printf
>      } while (0);
> 
>      return 0;
> }