Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:11:50 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Keun-O Park <kpark3469@...il.com>
Cc: Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, 
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, 
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae, 
	Sodagudi Prasad <psodagud@...eaurora.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86: usercopy: reimplement arch_within_stack_frames
 with unwinder

[resending with the CCs I forgot...]

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:19 AM,  <kpark3469@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Sahara <keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae>
>
> The old arch_within_stack_frames which used the frame pointer is
> now reimplemented to use frame pointer unwinder apis. So the main
> functionality is same as before.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sahara <keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae>

This will result in slightly more expensive stack checking for
hardened usercopy, but I think that'd be okay if this could also be
made to be unwinder-agnostic. Then it would work for ORC too, and
wouldn't have to depend on just FRAME_POINTER. Without that, I'm not
sure what the benefit is in changing this?

Further notes below...

> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h  |  5 +++
>  arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c   | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c |  4 +--
>  3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h
> index 1f86e1b..6f04906f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h
> @@ -87,6 +87,11 @@ void unwind_init(void);
>  void unwind_module_init(struct module *mod, void *orc_ip, size_t orc_ip_size,
>                         void *orc, size_t orc_size);
>  #else
> +#ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER
> +#define FRAME_HEADER_SIZE (sizeof(long) * 2)
> +size_t regs_size(struct pt_regs *regs);
> +#endif
> +
>  static inline void unwind_init(void) {}
>  static inline
>  void unwind_module_init(struct module *mod, void *orc_ip, size_t orc_ip_size,
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index f433a33..c26eb55 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,37 @@
>  #include <asm/unwind.h>
>
>
> +static inline void *get_cur_frame(struct unwind_state *state)
> +{
> +       void *frame = NULL;
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC)
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER)
> +       if (state->regs)
> +               frame = (void *)state->regs;
> +       else
> +               frame = (void *)state->bp;
> +#else
> +#endif
> +       return frame;
> +}

What's going on here with the #if statement? Shouldn't this just be:

+static inline void *get_cur_frame(struct unwind_state *state)
+{
+       void *frame = NULL;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER
+       if (state->regs)
+               frame = (void *)state->regs;
+       else
+               frame = (void *)state->bp;
+#endif
+       return frame;
+}

?

> +
> +static inline void *get_frame_end(struct unwind_state *state)
> +{
> +       void *frame_end = NULL;
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC)
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER)
> +       if (state->regs) {
> +               frame_end = (void *)state->regs + regs_size(state->regs);
> +       } else {
> +               frame_end = (void *)state->bp + FRAME_HEADER_SIZE;
> +       }
> +#else
> +#endif
> +       return frame_end;
> +}

Same thing above?

> +
>  /*
>   * Walks up the stack frames to make sure that the specified object is
>   * entirely contained by a single stack frame.
> @@ -25,31 +56,31 @@ int arch_within_stack_frames(const void * const stack,
>                              const void * const stackend,
>                              const void *obj, unsigned long len)
>  {
> -#if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER)
> -       const void *frame = NULL;
> -       const void *oldframe;
> -
> -       oldframe = __builtin_frame_address(2);
> -       if (oldframe)
> -               frame = __builtin_frame_address(3);
> +#if defined(CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER)
> +       struct unwind_state state;
> +       void *prev_frame_end = NULL;
>         /*
> -        * low ----------------------------------------------> high
> -        * [saved bp][saved ip][args][local vars][saved bp][saved ip]
> -        *                     ^----------------^
> -        *               allow copies only within here

I think it's worth keeping this diagram: it explains what region is
being checked...

> +        * Skip 3 non-inlined frames: arch_within_stack_frames(),
> +        * check_stack_object() and __check_object_size().
> +        *
>          */
> -       while (stack <= frame && frame < stackend) {
> -               /*
> -                * If obj + len extends past the last frame, this
> -                * check won't pass and the next frame will be 0,
> -                * causing us to bail out and correctly report
> -                * the copy as invalid.
> -                */

Also seems like we should keep the comment for describing what's happening...

> -               if (obj + len <= frame)
> -                       return obj >= oldframe + 2 * sizeof(void *) ?
> -                               GOOD_FRAME : BAD_STACK;
> -               oldframe = frame;
> -               frame = *(const void * const *)frame;
> +       unsigned int discard_frames = 3;
> +
> +       for (unwind_start(&state, current, NULL, NULL); !unwind_done(&state);
> +            unwind_next_frame(&state)) {
> +               if (discard_frames) {
> +                       discard_frames--;
> +               } else {
> +                       void *frame = get_cur_frame(&state);
> +
> +                       if (!frame || !prev_frame_end)
> +                               return NOT_STACK;
> +                       if (obj + len <= frame)
> +                               return obj >= prev_frame_end ?
> +                                               GOOD_FRAME : BAD_STACK;
> +               }
> +               /* save current frame end before move to next frame */
> +               prev_frame_end = get_frame_end(&state);
>         }
>         return BAD_STACK;
>  #else
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c
> index 3dc26f9..c8bfa5c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c
> @@ -8,8 +8,6 @@
>  #include <asm/stacktrace.h>
>  #include <asm/unwind.h>
>
> -#define FRAME_HEADER_SIZE (sizeof(long) * 2)
> -
>  unsigned long unwind_get_return_address(struct unwind_state *state)
>  {
>         if (unwind_done(state))
> @@ -69,7 +67,7 @@ static void unwind_dump(struct unwind_state *state)
>         }
>  }
>
> -static size_t regs_size(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +size_t regs_size(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
>         /* x86_32 regs from kernel mode are two words shorter: */
>         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32) && !user_mode(regs))
> --
> 2.7.4
>

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security


-- 
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.