[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:29:16 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/refcount: Implement fast refcount overflow protection
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 08:58:29PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 04:31:11PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:32:52PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > >> +#define REFCOUNT_EXCEPTION \
>> > >> + "movl $0x7fffffff, %[counter]\n\t" \
>> > >> + "int $"__stringify(X86_REFCOUNT_VECTOR)"\n" \
>> > >> + "0:\n\t" \
>> > >> + _ASM_EXTABLE(0b, 0b)
>> > >
>> > > Despite the objtool warnings going away, this still uses the exception
>> > > table in a new way, which will confuse objtool. I need to do some more
>> > > thinking about the best way to fix it, either as a change to your patch
>> > > or a change to objtool.
>> >
>> > In that it's not a "true" exception?
>>
>> Right. And also that it doesn't need the "fixup" since it would return
>> to the same address anyway.
>
> How about the following on top of your patch? It uses #UD (invalid
> opcode). Notice it's mostly code deletions :-)
Hah, I wrote this patch almost exactly last night, but hadn't had a
chance to send it out. :)
I ended up defining a new exception handler, which means nothing
special in the generic trap code. I didn't send it out because it was
still using a jns instead of js, and I was pondering if I wanted to
reintroduce the text section jump just to gain the initial benefit of
forward-branch-not-taken optimization...
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h
> index 6e8bbd7..653a985 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h
> @@ -8,15 +8,16 @@
> */
> #include <linux/refcount.h>
> #include <asm/irq_vectors.h>
> +#include <asm/bug.h>
>
> #define REFCOUNT_EXCEPTION \
> "movl $0x7fffffff, %[counter]\n\t" \
> - "int $"__stringify(X86_REFCOUNT_VECTOR)"\n" \
> - "0:\n\t" \
> - _ASM_EXTABLE(0b, 0b)
> + "1:\t" ASM_UD0 "\n" \
> + "2:\n\t" \
> + _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 2b)
I used _ASM_EXTABLE_REFCOUNT(1b, 2b) here, with
arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h adding:
+# define _ASM_EXTABLE_REFCOUNT(from, to) \
+ _ASM_EXTABLE_HANDLE(from, to, ex_handler_refcount)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> index 0b2dbcc..7de95b7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -220,8 +220,8 @@ do_trap_no_signal(struct task_struct *tsk, int trapnr, char *str,
> if (!user_mode(regs)) {
> if (fixup_exception(regs, trapnr)) {
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FAST_REFCOUNT) &&
> - trapnr == X86_REFCOUNT_VECTOR)
> - refcount_error_report(regs, str);
> + trapnr == X86_TRAP_UD)
> + refcount_error_report(regs);
>
> return 0;
> }
And then I could leave out this hunk, instead adding this to
arch/x86/mm/extable.c:
+bool ex_handler_refcount(const struct exception_table_entry *fixup,
+ struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr)
+{
+ regs->ip = ex_fixup_addr(fixup);
+ refcount_error_report(regs, "overflow");
+ return true;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ex_handler_refcount);
After looking at the assembly output, the "movl" instructions can be
various sizes, depending on where %[counter] lives, so I'm also
considering returning to using PaX's "lea", but I'm not sure the
benefit would be very large.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
