linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/ibt: Implement FineIBT

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:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:32:06 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ibt: Implement FineIBT

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 12:59:42PM -0700, Joao Moreira wrote:
> Kees said:
> > I still think it's worth noting it does technically weaken the
> > "attacker-controlled executable memory content injection" attack
> > requirements, too. While an attacker needs to make sure they place an
> > ENDBR at the start of their injected code, they no longer need to also
> > learn and inject the CFI hash too, as the malicious code can just not
> > do the check at all. The difference in protection currently isn't much.
> > 
> > It's not a very difficult requirement to get attacker-controlled bytes
> > into executable memory, as there are already existing APIs that provide
> > this to varying degrees of reachability, utility, and discoverability --
> > for example, BPF JIT when constant blinding isn't enabled (the
> > unfortunate
> > default). And with the hashes currently being deterministic, there's no
> > secret that needs to be exposed first; an attack can just calculate it.
> > An improvement for kCFI would be to mutate all the hashes both at build
> > time (perhaps using the same seed infrastructure that randstruct depends
> > on for sharing a seed across compilation units), and at boot time, so
> > an actual .text content exposure is needed to find the target hash
> > value.
> > 
> If we look back at how well ASLR did over the years I think we can't really
> rely that randomizing the hashes will solve anything. So what you are
> suggesting is that we flip a "viable defence against SpectreBHB" for a
> randomization-based scheme, when what we really should be doing is getting
> constant blinding enabled by default.

I don't think any of these things are mutually exclusive. The
randomization means an additional step (and possibly additional primitive)
is needed for an attack chain. Since we get this from a one-time cost
on our end, that seems like reasonable value.

> At this point I feel like going on is a bit of bike-shedding, but if this
> really matters, below is how to use randomization on FineIBT. Maybe with lot
> less entropy, but just ideas thrown that could be improved over time (don't
> take this as a serious proposal):
> 
> Assuming we got 16 bytes padding to play with on each function prologue, you
> can randomize between 0-11 in which offset you emit the ENDBR instruction.
> Caller/Callee would look like (hopefully I did not mess-up offset):
> 
> <caller>:
> and 0xf3, r11b
> call *r11
> 
> <callee>:
> nop
> nop
> nop
> endbr // <- this position is randomized/patched during boot time.
> nop
> nop
> ...
> 
> And of course, you get more entropy as you increase the padding nop area.

Oh, I kind of like this -- it'd need to be per matching hash. This would
require roughly 3 bits of entropy exposure of the .text area. For X^R,
that becomes annoying for an attacker, though likely once close enough,
multiple attempts could find it, assume panic_on_oops/warn wasn't set.

Anyway, this sounds like an interesting idea to keep in our back
pocket...

-- 
Kees Cook