[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202212021846.AECD42F51@keescook>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 18:46:29 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
John Allen <john.allen@....com>, kcc@...gle.com,
eranian@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org, jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com,
dethoma@...rosoft.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com, christina.schimpe@...el.com,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 29/39] x86/shstk: Handle signals for shadow stack
On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 04:35:56PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
>
> When a signal is handled normally the context is pushed to the stack
> before handling it. For shadow stacks, since the shadow stack only track's
> return addresses, there isn't any state that needs to be pushed. However,
> there are still a few things that need to be done. These things are
> userspace visible and which will be kernel ABI for shadow stacks.
>
> One is to make sure the restorer address is written to shadow stack, since
> the signal handler (if not changing ucontext) returns to the restorer, and
> the restorer calls sigreturn. So add the restorer on the shadow stack
> before handling the signal, so there is not a conflict when the signal
> handler returns to the restorer.
>
> The other thing to do is to place some type of checkable token on the
> thread's shadow stack before handling the signal and check it during
> sigreturn. This is an extra layer of protection to hamper attackers
> calling sigreturn manually as in SROP-like attacks.
>
> For this token we can use the shadow stack data format defined earlier.
> Have the data pushed be the previous SSP. In the future the sigreturn
> might want to return back to a different stack. Storing the SSP (instead
> of a restore offset or something) allows for future functionality that
> may want to restore to a different stack.
>
> So, when handling a signal push
> - the SSP pointing in the shadow stack data format
> - the restorer address below the restore token.
>
> In sigreturn, verify SSP is stored in the data format and pop the shadow
> stack.
>
> Tested-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>
> Tested-by: John Allen <john.allen@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists