linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/fineibt: Poison ENDBR at +0

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: <20230621084802.GA2048237@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:48:02 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, alyssa.milburn@...ux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com,
        jpoimboe@...nel.org, joao@...rdrivepizza.com,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/fineibt: Poison ENDBR at +0

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:18:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> (and I need to write a better Changelog).

Updated changelog...

---
Subject: x86/fineibt: Poison ENDBR at +0
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 21:35:48 +0200

Alyssa noticed that when building the kernel with CFI_CLANG+IBT and
booting on IBT enabled hardware obtain FineIBT, the indirect functions
look like:

  __cfi_foo:
	endbr64
	subl	$hash, %r10d
	jz	1f
	ud2
	nop
  1:
  foo:
	endbr64

This is because the compiler generates code for kCFI+IBT. In that case
the caller does the hash check and will jump to +0, so there must be
an ENDBR there. The compiler doesn't know about FineIBT at all; also
it is possible to actually use kCFI+IBT when booting with 'cfi=kcfi'
on IBT enabled hardware.

Having this second ENDBR however makes it possible to elide the CFI
check. Therefore, we should poison this second ENDBR when switching to
FineIBT mode.

Fixes: 931ab63664f0 ("x86/ibt: Implement FineIBT")
Reported-by: "Milburn, Alyssa" <alyssa.milburn@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Reviewed-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230615193722.194131053@infradead.org
---
 arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
@@ -1063,6 +1063,17 @@ static int cfi_rewrite_preamble(s32 *sta
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static void cfi_rewrite_endbr(s32 *start, s32 *end)
+{
+	s32 *s;
+
+	for (s = start; s < end; s++) {
+		void *addr = (void *)s + *s;
+
+		poison_endbr(addr+16, false);
+	}
+}
+
 /* .retpoline_sites */
 static int cfi_rand_callers(s32 *start, s32 *end)
 {
@@ -1157,14 +1168,19 @@ static void __apply_fineibt(s32 *start_r
 		return;
 
 	case CFI_FINEIBT:
+		/* place the FineIBT preamble at func()-16 */
 		ret = cfi_rewrite_preamble(start_cfi, end_cfi);
 		if (ret)
 			goto err;
 
+		/* rewrite the callers to target func()-16 */
 		ret = cfi_rewrite_callers(start_retpoline, end_retpoline);
 		if (ret)
 			goto err;
 
+		/* now that nobody targets func()+0, remove ENDBR there */
+		cfi_rewrite_endbr(start_cfi, end_cfi);
+
 		if (builtin)
 			pr_info("Using FineIBT CFI\n");
 		return;