linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Clear the stack
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 08:19:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180503071917.xm2xvgagvzkworay@salmiak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180502203326.9491-3-labbott@redhat.com>

Hi Laura,

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> 
> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
> ---
> Now written in C instead of a bunch of assembly.

This looks neat!

I have a few minor comments below.

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
> index bf825f38d206..0ceea613c65b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
> @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ arm64-reloc-test-y := reloc_test_core.o reloc_test_syms.o
>  arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP)		+= crash_dump.o
>  arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SDE_INTERFACE)	+= sdei.o
>  
> +arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK) += erase.o
> +KASAN_SANITIZE_erase.o	:= n

I suspect we want to avoid the full set of instrumentation suspects here, e.g.
GKOV, KASAN, UBSAN, and KCOV.

> +
>  obj-y					+= $(arm64-obj-y) vdso/ probes/
>  obj-m					+= $(arm64-obj-m)
>  head-y					:= head.o
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index ec2ee720e33e..3144f1ebdc18 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -401,6 +401,11 @@ tsk	.req	x28		// current thread_info
>  
>  	.text
>  
> +	.macro	ERASE_KSTACK
> +#ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
> +	bl	erase_kstack
> +#endif
> +	.endm

Nit: The rest of our asm macros are lower-case -- can we stick to that here?

>  /*
>   * Exception vectors.
>   */
> @@ -906,6 +911,7 @@ ret_to_user:
>  	cbnz	x2, work_pending
>  finish_ret_to_user:
>  	enable_step_tsk x1, x2
> +	ERASE_KSTACK
>  	kernel_exit 0
>  ENDPROC(ret_to_user)

I believe we also need this in ret_fast_syscall.

[...]

> +asmlinkage void erase_kstack(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned long p = current->thread.lowest_stack;
> +	unsigned long boundary = p & ~(THREAD_SIZE - 1);
> +	unsigned long poison = 0;
> +	const unsigned long check_depth = STACKLEAK_POISON_CHECK_DEPTH /
> +							sizeof(unsigned long);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Let's search for the poison value in the stack.
> +	 * Start from the lowest_stack and go to the bottom.
> +	 */
> +	while (p > boundary && poison <= check_depth) {
> +		if (*(unsigned long *)p == STACKLEAK_POISON)
> +			poison++;
> +		else
> +			poison = 0;
> +
> +		p -= sizeof(unsigned long);
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * One long int at the bottom of the thread stack is reserved and
> +	 * should not be poisoned (see CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK).
> +	 */
> +	if (p == boundary)
> +		p += sizeof(unsigned long);

I wonder if end_of_stack() should be taught about CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK,
given that's supposed to return the last *usable* long on the stack, and we
don't account for this elsewhere.

If we did, then IIUC we could do:

	unsigned long boundary = (unsigned long)end_of_stack(current);

... at the start of the function, and not have to worry about this explicitly.

> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS
> +	current->thread.prev_lowest_stack = p;
> +#endif
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * So let's write the poison value to the kernel stack.
> +	 * Start from the address in p and move up till the new boundary.
> +	 */
> +	boundary = current_stack_pointer;

I worry a little that the compiler can move the SP during a function's
lifetime, but maybe that's only the case when there are VLAs, or something like
that?

> +
> +	BUG_ON(boundary - p >= THREAD_SIZE);
> +
> +	while (p < boundary) {
> +		*(unsigned long *)p = STACKLEAK_POISON;
> +		p += sizeof(unsigned long);
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Reset the lowest_stack value for the next syscall */
> +	current->thread.lowest_stack = current_stack_pointer;
> +}

Once this function returns, its data is left on the stack. Is that not a problem?

No strong feelings either way, but it might be worth mentioning in the commit
message.

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> index f08a2ed9db0d..156fa0a0da19 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> @@ -364,6 +364,9 @@ int copy_thread(unsigned long clone_flags, unsigned long stack_start,
>  	p->thread.cpu_context.pc = (unsigned long)ret_from_fork;
>  	p->thread.cpu_context.sp = (unsigned long)childregs;
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
> +	p->thread.lowest_stack = (unsigned long)task_stack_page(p);

Nit: end_of_stack(p) would be slightly better semantically, even though
currently equivalent to task_stack_page(p).

[...]

> +#ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
> +void __used check_alloca(unsigned long size)
> +{
> +	unsigned long sp, stack_left;
> +
> +	sp = current_stack_pointer;
> +
> +	stack_left = sp & (THREAD_SIZE - 1);
> +	BUG_ON(stack_left < 256 || size >= stack_left - 256);
> +}

Is this arbitrary, or is there something special about 256?

Even if this is arbitrary, can we give it some mnemonic?

> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(check_alloca);
> +#endif
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> index a34e9290a699..25dd2a14560d 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> @@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_EFI_ARMSTUB)	+= -I$(srctree)/scripts/dtc/libfdt
>  KBUILD_CFLAGS			:= $(cflags-y) -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING \
>  				   -D__NO_FORTIFY \
>  				   $(call cc-option,-ffreestanding) \
> -				   $(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector)
> +				   $(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector) \
> +				   $(DISABLE_STACKLEAK_PLUGIN)
>  
>  GCOV_PROFILE			:= n
>  KASAN_SANITIZE			:= n

I believe we'll also need to do this for the KVM hyp code in arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/.

Thanks,
Mark.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-05-03  7:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-06 14:22 [PATCH v11 0/6] Introduce the STACKLEAK feature and a test for it Alexander Popov
2018-04-06 14:22 ` [PATCH v11 1/6] gcc-plugins: Clean up the cgraph_create_edge* macros Alexander Popov
2018-04-06 14:22 ` [PATCH v11 2/6] x86/entry: Add STACKLEAK erasing the kernel stack at the end of syscalls Alexander Popov
2018-04-16 18:29   ` Kees Cook
2018-04-18 18:33     ` Laura Abbott
2018-04-18 18:50     ` Dave Hansen
2018-04-24  1:03       ` Kees Cook
2018-04-24  4:23   ` Dave Hansen
2018-04-30 23:48     ` Kees Cook
2018-05-02  8:42       ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-05-02 12:38         ` Kees Cook
2018-05-02 12:39           ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-05-02 12:51             ` Kees Cook
2018-05-02 21:02               ` Kees Cook
2018-05-06 10:04                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-06 14:22 ` [PATCH v11 3/6] gcc-plugins: Add STACKLEAK plugin for tracking the kernel stack Alexander Popov
2018-04-06 14:22 ` [PATCH v11 4/6] lkdtm: Add a test for STACKLEAK Alexander Popov
2018-04-06 14:22 ` [PATCH v11 5/6] fs/proc: Show STACKLEAK metrics in the /proc file system Alexander Popov
2018-04-06 14:22 ` [PATCH v11 6/6] doc: self-protection: Add information about STACKLEAK feature Alexander Popov
2018-05-02 20:33 ` [PATCH 0/2] Stackleak for arm64 Laura Abbott
2018-05-02 20:33   ` [PATCH 1/2] stackleak: Update " Laura Abbott
2018-05-02 20:33   ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Clear the stack Laura Abbott
2018-05-02 21:31     ` Kees Cook
2018-05-02 23:07       ` Laura Abbott
2018-05-02 23:37         ` Kees Cook
2018-05-03 16:05         ` Alexander Popov
2018-05-03 16:45           ` Kees Cook
2018-05-03  7:19     ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2018-05-03 11:37       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-05-03 17:33       ` Alexander Popov
2018-05-03 19:09         ` Laura Abbott
2018-05-04  8:30           ` Alexander Popov
2018-05-04 11:09         ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-06  8:22           ` Alexander Popov
2018-05-11 15:50             ` Alexander Popov
2018-05-11 16:13               ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-13  8:40                 ` Alexander Popov
2018-05-14  5:15                   ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-14  9:35                     ` Alexander Popov
2018-05-14 10:06                       ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-14 13:53                         ` Alexander Popov
2018-05-14 14:07                           ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-03 19:00       ` Laura Abbott
2018-05-04 11:16         ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-14 18:55 ` [PATCH v11 0/6] Introduce the STACKLEAK feature and a test for it Laura Abbott
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-07-18 21:10 [PATCH 0/2] Stackleak for arm64 Laura Abbott
2018-07-18 21:10 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Clear the stack Laura Abbott
2018-07-19  2:20   ` Kees Cook
2018-07-19 10:41   ` Alexander Popov
2018-07-19 11:41   ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-21  1:13 [PATCH 0/2] Stackleak for arm64 Laura Abbott
2018-02-21  1:13 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Clear the stack Laura Abbott
2018-02-21 15:38   ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-21 23:53     ` Laura Abbott
2018-02-22  1:35       ` Laura Abbott

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=20180503071917.xm2xvgagvzkworay@salmiak \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=alex.popov@linux.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=labbott@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).