linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/15] x86-64: Stack protector and percpu improvements

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: <CAMj1kXFgfbLqVkcs2T8QHRKKJ0X7+mLd-bNjricfd_niY-dxRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:05:06 +0100
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/15] x86-64: Stack protector and percpu improvements

Hi Uros,

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 10:51, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 2:18 PM Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 6:47 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > * Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Thank you for doing this series - it all looks pretty good from my
> > > > > side and I've applied it experimentally to tip:x86/asm. I fixed up
> > > > > the trivial details other reviewers and me noticed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that the merge is tentative, it might still need a rebase if
> > > > > some fundamental problem comes up - but let's see how testing goes
> > > > > in -next.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if there would be any benefit if stack canary is put into
> > > > struct pcpu_hot?
> > >
> > > It should definitely be one of the hottest data structures on x86, so
> > > moving it there makes sense even if it cannot be measured explicitly.
> > >
> >
> > It would have to be done with linker tricks, since you can't make the
> > compiler use a struct member directly.
>
> Something like the attached patch?
>

Interesting take. I'd have tried to put the canary at offset 0x0, and
simply use pcpu_hot as the guard symbol.


> It boots and runs without problems.
>
> However, when building the kernel, I get "Absolute relocations
> present" warning with thousands of locations:
>
>   RELOCS  arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.relocs
> WARNING: Absolute relocations present
> Offset     Info     Type     Sym.Value Sym.Name
> ffffffff81200826 0003259e00000002 R_X86_64_PC32 ffffffff8350f620
> __ref_stack_chk_guard
> ffffffff81201493 0003259e00000002 R_X86_64_PC32 ffffffff8350f620
> __ref_stack_chk_guard
> ffffffff81201714 0003259e00000002 R_X86_64_PC32 ffffffff8350f620
> __ref_stack_chk_guard
> ffffffff81201d66 0003259e00000002 R_X86_64_PC32 ffffffff8350f620
> __ref_stack_chk_guard
> ...
> ffffffff834e2a13 0003259e00000002 R_X86_64_PC32 ffffffff8350f620
> __ref_stack_chk_guard
> ffffffff834e2a6a 0003259e00000002 R_X86_64_PC32 ffffffff8350f620
> __ref_stack_chk_guard
>
>   RSTRIP  vmlinux
>
> which I don't understand. Looking at the first one:
>
> ffffffff8120081d <force_ibs_eilvt_setup.cold>:
> ffffffff8120081d:    48 8b 44 24 08           mov    0x8(%rsp),%rax
> ffffffff81200822:    65 48 2b 05 f6 ed 30     sub
> %gs:0x230edf6(%rip),%rax        # ffffffff8350f620
> <__ref_stack_chk_guard>
> ffffffff81200829:    02
>
> I don't think this is absolute relocation, see (%rip).
>

The warning is about the type of __ref_stack_chk_guard, not about the
type of the relocation.

$ nm vmlinux |grep \\s__ref_sta
ffffffff8350c620 A __ref_stack_chk_guard

Without your patch:

$ nm vmlinux |grep \\s__ref_sta
ffffffff834fba10 D __ref_stack_chk_guard