linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -fixes] riscv: Do not use fortify in early code

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: <1CA19FB3-C1E3-4C2F-A4FB-05B69EC66D2F@jrtc27.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 23:04:47 +0100
From: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
 Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
 Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
 Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
 Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Jason Montleon <jmontleo@...hat.com>,
 stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -fixes] riscv: Do not use fortify in early code

On 9 Oct 2024, at 08:27, Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com> wrote:
> 
> Early code designates the code executed when the MMU is not yet enabled,
> and this comes with some limitations (see
> Documentation/arch/riscv/boot.rst, section "Pre-MMU execution").
> 
> FORTIFY_SOURCE must be disabled then since it can trigger kernel panics
> as reported in [1].
> 
> Reported-by: Jason Montleon <jmontleo@...hat.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CAJD_bPJes4QhmXY5f63GHV9B9HFkSCoaZjk-qCT2NGS7Q9HODg@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
> Fixes: a35707c3d850 ("riscv: add memory-type errata for T-Head")
> Fixes: 26e7aacb83df ("riscv: Allow to downgrade paging mode from the command line")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>

Is the problem in [1] not just that the early boot path uses memcpy on
the result of ALT_OLD_PTR, which is a wildly out-of-bounds pointer from
the compiler’s perspective? If so, it would seem better to use
unsafe_memcpy for that one call site rather than use the big
__NO_FORTIFY hammer, surely?

Presumably the non-early path is just as bad to the compiler, but works
because patch_text_nosync isn’t instrumented, so that would just align
the two.

Getting the implementation to not be silent on failure during early
boot would also be a good idea, but it’s surely better to have
FORTIFY_SOURCE enabled with no output for positives than disable the
checking in the first place and risk uncaught corruption.

Jess