Kernel-hardening archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	oss-security@lists.openwall.com,
	 x86-64-abi <x86-64-abi@googlegroups.com>,
	 Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative CET ABI
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:14:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOqnPJMC+d9cRTc-zHaj7Pp5JvW-Zfqxhy3M3P6zG_CE0A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h7tpeyed.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:54 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * Jann Horn:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:02 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Functions no longer start with the ENDBR64 prefix.  Instead, the link
> >> editor produces a PLT entry with an ENDBR64 prefix if it detects any
> >> address-significant relocation for it.  The PLT entry performs a NOTRACK
> >> jump to the target address.  This assumes that the target address is
> >> subject to RELRO, of course, so that redirection is not possible.
> >> Without address-significant relocations, the link editor produces a PLT
> >> entry without the ENDBR64 prefix (but still with the NOTRACK jump), or
> >> perhaps no PLT entry at all.
> >
> > How would this interact with function pointer comparisons? As in, if
> > library A exports a function func1 without referencing it, and
> > libraries B and C both take references to func1, would they end up
> > with different function pointers (pointing to their respective PLT
> > entries)?
>
> Same as today.  ELF already deals with this by picking one canonical
> function address per process.
>
> Some targets already need PLTs for inter-DSO calls, so the problem is
> not new.  It happens even on x86 because the main program can refer to
> its PLT stubs without run-time relocations, so those determine the
> canonical address of those functions, and not the actual implementation
> in a shared object.
>
> > Would this mean that the behavior of a program that compares
> > function pointers obtained through different shared libraries might
> > change?
>
> Hopefully not, because that would break things quite horribly (as it's
> sometimes possible to observe if the RTLD_DEEPBIND flag is used).
>
> Both the canonicalization and the fact in order to observe the function
> pointer, you need to take its address should take care of this.
>
> > I guess you could maybe canonicalize function pointers somehow, but
> > that'd probably at least break dlclose(), right?
>
> Ahh, dlclose.  I think in this case, my idea to generate a PLT stub
> locally in the address-generating DSO will not work because the
> canonical address must survive dlclose if it refers to another DSO.
> There are two ways to deal with this: do not unload the PLT stub until
> the target DSO is also unloaded (but make sure that the DSO can be
> reloaded at a different address; probably not worth the complexity),
> or use the dlsym hack I sketched for regular symbol binding as well.
> Even more room for experiments, I guess.
>
> Thanks,
> Florian

FWIW, we can introduce a different CET PLT as long as it is compatible
with the past, current and future binaries.

-- 
H.J.

      reply index

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-30 16:01 Florian Weimer
2020-07-30 16:41 ` Jann Horn
2020-07-30 16:47   ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-07-30 16:54   ` Florian Weimer
2020-07-30 17:14     ` H.J. Lu [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAMe9rOqnPJMC+d9cRTc-zHaj7Pp5JvW-Zfqxhy3M3P6zG_CE0A@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=oss-security@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
    --cc=x86-64-abi@googlegroups.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Kernel-hardening archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/kernel-hardening/0 kernel-hardening/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 kernel-hardening kernel-hardening/ https://lore.kernel.org/kernel-hardening \
		kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
	public-inbox-index kernel-hardening

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/com.openwall.lists.kernel-hardening


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git