linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: add flags for shadow call stack sanitizer

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: <CAH5fLgg0yGbuHnMbMB103Zssg4KSfXUR3kvhr0kuqTSah=6kWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 08:15:42 +0100
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Valentin Obst <kernel@...entinobst.de>
Cc: samitolvanen@...gle.com, Jamie.Cunliffe@....com, a.hindborg@...sung.com, 
	alex.gaynor@...il.com, ardb@...nel.org, benno.lossin@...ton.me, 
	bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org, 
	catalin.marinas@....com, gary@...yguo.net, keescook@...omium.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mark.rutland@....com, masahiroy@...nel.org, 
	maz@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, nicolas@...sle.eu, 
	ojeda@...nel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, wedsonaf@...il.com, 
	will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: add flags for shadow call stack sanitizer

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:32 AM Valentin Obst <kernel@...entinobst.de> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Add flags to support the shadow call stack sanitizer, both in the
> > > dynamic and non-dynamic modes.
> > >
> > > Right now, the compiler will emit the warning "unknown feature specified
> > > for `-Ctarget-feature`: `reserve-x18`". However, the compiler still
> > > passes it to the codegen backend, so the flag will work just fine. Once
> > > rustc starts recognizing the flag (or provides another way to enable the
> > > feature), it will stop emitting this warning. See [1] for the relevant
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > Currently, the compiler thinks that the aarch64-unknown-none target
> > > doesn't support -Zsanitizer=shadow-call-stack, so the build will fail if
> > > you enable shadow call stack in non-dynamic mode. However, I still think
> > > it is reasonable to add the flag now, as it will at least fail the build
> > > when using an invalid configuration, until the Rust compiler is fixed to
> > > list -Zsanitizer=shadow-call-stack as supported for the target. See [2]
> > > for the feature request to add this.
> > >
> > > I have tested this change with Rust Binder on an Android device using
> > > CONFIG_DYNAMIC_SCS. Without the -Ctarget-feature=+reserve-x18 flag, the
> > > phone crashes immediately on boot, and with the flag, the phone appears
> > > to work normally.
> > >
> > > Link: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121970 [1]
> > > Link: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121972 [2]
> > > Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > > It's not 100% clear to me whether this patch is enough for full SCS
> > > support in Rust. If there is some issue where this makes things compile
> > > and work without actually applying SCS to the Rust code, please let me
> > > know. Is there some way to verify that it is actually working?
> >
> > Perhaps you could write a Rust version of the CFI_BACKWARD test in LKDTM?
> >
> > Alternatively, the simplest way to verify this is to look at the
> > disassembly and verify that shadow stack instructions are emitted to
> > Rust functions too. In case of dynamic SCS, you might need to dump
> > function memory in a debugger to verify that PAC instructions were
> > patched correctly. If they're not, the code will just quietly continue
> > working without using shadow stacks.
>
> Was just in the process of doing that:
>
> - `paciasp`/`autiasp` pairs are emitted for functions in Rust modules.
> - Rust modules have no `.init.eh_frame` section, which implies that
>   `module_finalize` is _not_ rewriting the pac insns when SCS is dynamic.
>   - Confirmed that behavior in the debugger (C modules and the C part of the
>     kernel are correctly rewritten, Rust modules execute with
>     `paciasp`/`autiasp` still in place).
> - Kernel boots just fine with Rust kunit tests, tested with and without dynamic
>   SCS, i.e., on a CPU that supports PAC/BTI and one that does not.
> - Rust sample modules load and unload without problems as well.
> - `x18` is indeed not used in the codegen.
>
> I guess we might be able to get this working when we tweak the build system
> to emit the missing section for Rust modules.

I suppose the -Cforce-unwind-tables=y flag will most likely do it.
There's also an use_sync_unwind option, but it defaults to no, so it
doesn't seem like we need to set it.

Alice