linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC RFT v2 2/5] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()

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, 15 Nov 2023 18:43:47 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     "Szabolcs.Nagy@....com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>
Cc:     "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "dietmar.eggemann@....com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.com>,
        "mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "vschneid@...hat.com" <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "bristot@...hat.com" <bristot@...hat.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "bsegall@...gle.com" <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "Pandey, Sunil K" <sunil.k.pandey@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RFT v2 2/5] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 04:20:12PM +0000, Szabolcs.Nagy@....com wrote:
> The 11/15/2023 12:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 12:45:45AM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2023-11-14 at 20:05 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > > +               if (size < 8)
> > > > +                       return (unsigned long)ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);

> > > What is the intention here? The check in map_shadow_stack is to leave
> > > space for the token, but here there is no token.

> > It was to ensure that there is sufficient space for at least one entry
> > on the stack.

> end marker token (0) needs it i guess.

x86 doesn't currently have end markers.  Actually, that's a point -
should we add a flag for specifying the use of end markers here?
There's code in my map_shadow_stack() implementation for arm64 which
does that.

> otherwise 0 size would be fine: the child may not execute
> a call instruction at all.

Well, a size of specifically zero will result in a fallback to implicit
allocation/sizing of the stack as things stand so this is specifically
the case where a size has been specified but is smaller than a single
entry.

> > > I think for CLONE_VM we should not require a non-zero size. Speaking of
> > > CLONE_VM we should probably be clear on what the expected behavior is
> > > for situations when a new shadow stack is not usually allocated.
> > > !CLONE_VM || CLONE_VFORK will use the existing shadow stack. Should we
> > > require shadow_stack_size be zero in this case, or just ignore it? I'd
> > > lean towards requiring it to be zero so userspace doesn't pass garbage
> > > in that we have to accommodate later. What we could possibly need to do
> > > around that though, I'm not sure. What do you think?

> > Yes, requiring it to be zero in that case makes sense I think.

> i think the condition is "no specified separate stack for
> the child (stack==0 || stack==sp)".

> CLONE_VFORK does not imply that the existing stack will be
> used (a stack for the child can be specified, i think both
> glibc and musl do this in posix_spawn).

That also works as a check I think, though it requires the arch to check
for the stack==sp case - I hadn't been aware of the posix_spawn() usage,
the above checks Rick suggested just follow the handling for implicit
allocation we have currently.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)