linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 03/36] arm64/gcs: Document the ABI for Guarded Control Stacks

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 09:55:50 +0100
From:   Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "Rick P. Edgecombe" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/36] arm64/gcs: Document the ABI for Guarded Control
 Stacks

The 08/09/2023 16:34, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 03:24:14PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 11:00:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > +* When GCS is enabled for a thread a new Guarded Control Stack will be
> > > +  allocated for it of size RLIMIT_STACK / 2 or 2 gigabytes, whichever is
> > > +  smaller.
> 
> > Is this number based on the fact that a function call would only push
> > the LR to GCS while standard function prologue pushes at least two
> > registers?
> 
> It's actually based on bitrot that I'd initially chosen a smaller value
> since it's likely that functions will push at least something as you
> suggest, the patches now just use RLIMIT_STACK.  I'll fix.

the pcs requires 16byte aligned stack frames, with 8byte per gcs entry
there is no need for same gcs size as stack size in userspace.

you can argue about a fixed size small increment (stacksize/2 + inc)
for signal handling on alt stack and special tokens, but stack size is
overkill i think.

fwiw my current makecontext patch uses roundup(stacksize/2+160).
(threads guaranteed to have about 300bytes of data on the stack in glibc
so if gcs is stacksize/2, that accounts for the increment. this is for
the theoretical case when an empty thread just tries to overflow the
stack and then handle the fault on sigaltstack.)