* Re: [PATCH] arm64: Make TSK_STACK_CANARY more accurate defined
2020-07-14 8:37 ` Will Deacon
@ 2020-07-14 9:32 ` Guo Ren
2020-07-17 0:56 ` Guo Ren
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Guo Ren @ 2020-07-14 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon, guoren
Cc: catalin.marinas, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-csky
On 2020/7/14 下午4:37, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 04:03:33AM +0000, guoren@kernel.org wrote:
>> From: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
>>
>> TSK_STACK_CANARY only used in arm64/Makefile with
>> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_PER_TASK wrap. So use the same policy in
>> asm-offset.c.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
>> Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
>> index 0577e21..37d5d3d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
>> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ int main(void)
>> DEFINE(TSK_TI_SCS_SP, offsetof(struct task_struct, thread_info.scs_sp));
>> #endif
>> DEFINE(TSK_STACK, offsetof(struct task_struct, stack));
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_PER_TASK
>> DEFINE(TSK_STACK_CANARY, offsetof(struct task_struct, stack_canary));
>> #endif
> I don't think this really makese much sense. The 'stack_canary' field in
> 'struct task_struct' is defined as:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR
> /* Canary value for the -fstack-protector GCC feature: */
> unsigned long stack_canary;
> #endif
>
> so I think it makes sense to follow that in asm-offsets.c
>
> Does the current code actually cause a problem?
No, I just want to know how arm64 reply, ref:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/1594397998-10221-1-git-send-email-guoren@kernel.org/T/#t
Best Regards
Guo Ren
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: Make TSK_STACK_CANARY more accurate defined
2020-07-14 8:37 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-14 9:32 ` Guo Ren
@ 2020-07-17 0:56 ` Guo Ren
2020-07-17 10:19 ` Will Deacon
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Guo Ren @ 2020-07-17 0:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-csky, Guo Ren
BTW, Jim found a GCC security leak in arm64, and would you want to
have a look at it?
-------
I notice in the epilogue I get
ld a4, 8(sp)
ld a5, 100(t6)
xor a5, a4, a5
bne a5,zero,.L4
This looks like a security leak that the canary value is left in a4.
The i386 implementation operates directly on memory without loading
into registers. The rs6000 implementation is careful to load 0 into
the other register in the stack_protector_test code after the xor. I
think this is a bug in the aarch64 code that it isn't clearing the
other register. And I think it is a bug in your code too. If we
don't need to clear the canary from the two registers, then you should
eliminate the xor and just use "bne a5,a4,.L4". But I think the way
you have it is right, you just need to clear the a4 register after the
xor.
--------
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549910.html
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 4:37 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 04:03:33AM +0000, guoren@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
> >
> > TSK_STACK_CANARY only used in arm64/Makefile with
> > CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_PER_TASK wrap. So use the same policy in
> > asm-offset.c.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
> > Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> > index 0577e21..37d5d3d 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ int main(void)
> > DEFINE(TSK_TI_SCS_SP, offsetof(struct task_struct, thread_info.scs_sp));
> > #endif
> > DEFINE(TSK_STACK, offsetof(struct task_struct, stack));
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_PER_TASK
> > DEFINE(TSK_STACK_CANARY, offsetof(struct task_struct, stack_canary));
> > #endif
>
> I don't think this really makese much sense. The 'stack_canary' field in
> 'struct task_struct' is defined as:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR
> /* Canary value for the -fstack-protector GCC feature: */
> unsigned long stack_canary;
> #endif
>
> so I think it makes sense to follow that in asm-offsets.c
>
> Does the current code actually cause a problem?
>
> Will
--
Best Regards
Guo Ren
ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread