linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 11/13] lkdtm/stackleak: check stack boundaries

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]

Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:31:26 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alex.popov@...ux.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, keescook@...omium.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, will@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 11/13] lkdtm/stackleak: check stack boundaries

The stackleak code relies upon the current SP and lowest recorded SP
falling within expected task stack boundaries.

Check this at the start of the test.

Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
---
 drivers/misc/lkdtm/stackleak.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/stackleak.c b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/stackleak.c
index 46c60761a05ea..52800583fd051 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/stackleak.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/stackleak.c
@@ -35,6 +35,25 @@ static void noinstr check_stackleak_irqoff(void)
 	unsigned long poison_high, poison_low;
 	bool test_failed = false;
 
+	/*
+	 * Check that the current and lowest recorded stack pointer values fall
+	 * within the expected task stack boundaries. These tests should never
+	 * fail unless the boundaries are incorrect or we're clobbering the
+	 * STACK_END_MAGIC, and in either casee something is seriously wrong.
+	 */
+	if (current_sp < task_stack_low || current_sp >= task_stack_high) {
+		pr_err("FAIL: current_stack_pointer (0x%lx) outside of task stack bounds [0x%lx..0x%lx]\n",
+		       current_sp, task_stack_low, task_stack_high - 1);
+		test_failed = true;
+		goto out;
+	}
+	if (lowest_sp < task_stack_low || lowest_sp >= task_stack_high) {
+		pr_err("FAIL: current->lowest_stack (0x%lx) outside of task stack bounds [0x%lx..0x%lx]\n",
+		       lowest_sp, task_stack_low, task_stack_high - 1);
+		test_failed = true;
+		goto out;
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * Depending on what has run prior to this test, the lowest recorded
 	 * stack pointer could be above or below the current stack pointer.
@@ -87,6 +106,7 @@ static void noinstr check_stackleak_irqoff(void)
 		poison_high - task_stack_low,
 		task_stack_low - task_stack_base);
 
+out:
 	if (test_failed) {
 		pr_err("FAIL: the thread stack is NOT properly erased!\n");
 		pr_expected_config(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK);
-- 
2.30.2