linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/8] arm64: stacktrace: Add arch_within_stack

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: <b328bed3-ebb9-6fba-9585-79946262c40f@windriver.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:01:11 +0800
From:   He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        namhyung@...nel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
        borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, svens@...ux.ibm.com, hpa@...or.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/8] arm64: stacktrace: Add arch_within_stack_frames



On 4/19/22 05:59, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 09:22:11PM +0800, He Zhe wrote:
>> This function checks if the given address range crosses frame boundary.
>> It is based on the existing x86 algorithm, but implemented via stacktrace.
>> This can be tested by USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_FROM and
>> USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_TO in lkdtm.
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for doing this implementation! One reason usercopy hardening
> didn't persue doing a "full" stacktrace was because it seemed relatively
> expensive. Did you do any usercopy-heavily workload testing to see if
> there was a noticeable performance impact?
>
> It would be nice to block the exposure of canaries and PAC bits, though,
> so I'm not opposed, but I'd like to get a better sense of how "heavy"
> this might be.

I just did some rough tests:
hackbench -s 512 -l 200 -g 15 -f 25 -P
Such line would hit arch_within_stack_frames at least 5000 times in my environment.
With hardened_usercopy=on, the execution time would be around 2.121 seconds(average for 30 times)
With hardened_usercopy=off, the execution time would be around 2.011 seconds(average for 30 times)

I'll test the original x86 way for arm64 tomorrow.

Any other workload needed to be run?

Thanks,
Zhe


>
> Thanks!
>
> -Kees
>