linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/stackprotector: Work around strict Clang TLS symbol requirements

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: <CAMzpN2i-EyGjkb9S6fWBXmZoj6GUEQNjSZ0-MviPJy-GiRxnPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 11:48:30 -0400
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, 
	Fangrui Song <i@...kray.me>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/stackprotector: Work around strict Clang TLS symbol requirements

On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 7:04 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 at 11:25, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> >
> > GCC and Clang both implement stack protector support based on Thread
> > Local Storage (TLS) variables, and this is used in the kernel to
> > implement per-task stack cookies, by copying a task's stack cookie into
> > a per-CPU variable every time it is scheduled in.
> >
> > Both now also implement -mstack-protector-guard-symbol=, which permits
> > the TLS variable to be specified directly. This is useful because it
> > will allow us to move away from using a fixed offset of 40 bytes into
> > the per-CPU area on x86_64, which requires a lot of special handling in
> > the per-CPU code and the runtime relocation code.
> >
> > However, while GCC is rather lax in its implementation of this command
> > line option, Clang actually requires that the provided symbol name
> > refers to a TLS variable (i.e., one declared with __thread), although it
> > also permits the variable to be undeclared entirely, in which case it
> > will use an implicit declaration of the right type.
> >
> > The upshot of this is that Clang will emit the correct references to the
> > stack cookie variable in most cases, e.g.,
> >
> >    10d:       64 a1 00 00 00 00       mov    %fs:0x0,%eax
> >                       10f: R_386_32   __stack_chk_guard
> >
> > However, if a non-TLS definition of the symbol in question is visible in
> > the same compilation unit (which amounts to the whole of vmlinux if LTO
> > is enabled), it will drop the per-CPU prefix and emit a load from a
> > bogus address.
> >
> > Work around this by using a symbol name that never occurs in C code, and
> > emit it as an alias in the linker script.
> >
> > Fixes: 3fb0fdb3bbe7 ("x86/stackprotector/32: Make the canary into a regular percpu variable")
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> > Cc: Fangrui Song <i@...kray.me>
> > Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
> > Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
> > Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1854
> > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/Makefile             |  5 +++--
> >  arch/x86/entry/entry.S        | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c  |  2 ++
> >  arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S |  3 +++
> >  4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
>
> This needs the hunk below applied on top for CONFIG_MODVERSIONS:
>
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/asm-prototypes.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/asm-prototypes.h
> @@ -20,3 +20,6 @@
>  extern void cmpxchg8b_emu(void);
>  #endif
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR
> +extern unsigned long __ref_stack_chk_guard;
> +#endif

Shouldn't this also be guarded by __GENKSYMS__, since the whole point
of this is to hide the declaration from the compiler?

Brian Gerst