[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:25:14 +0100
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@...escale.com>,
Sharma Bhupesh <bhupesh.sharma@...escale.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] arm64: add support for relocatable kernel
On 8 January 2016 at 11:17, James Morse <james.morse@....com> wrote:
> Hi Ard!
>
> On 30/12/15 15:26, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> This adds support for runtime relocation of the kernel Image, by
>> building it as a PIE (ET_DYN) executable and applying the dynamic
>> relocations in the early boot code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
>> ---
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> index 01a33e42ed70..ab582ee58b58 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> @@ -243,6 +253,16 @@ ENDPROC(stext)
>> preserve_boot_args:
>> mov x21, x0 // x21=FDT
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_RELOCATABLE_KERNEL
>> + /*
>> + * Mask off the bits of the random value supplied in x1 so it can serve
>> + * as a KASLR displacement value which will move the kernel image to a
>> + * random offset in the lower half of the VMALLOC area.
>> + */
>> + mov x23, #(1 << (VA_BITS - 2)) - 1
>> + and x23, x23, x1, lsl #SWAPPER_BLOCK_SHIFT
>> +#endif
>
> I've managed to make this fail to boot by providing a seed that caused
> the kernel to overlap a 1G boundary on a 4K system.
>
Ah, yes. Thanks for spotting that.
> (It looks like your v3 may have the same issue - but I haven't tested it.)
>
>
Yes, it does. It probably makes sense to sacrifice some entropy bits
and simply round up the kaslr offset to a log2 upper bound of the
kernel Image size, rather than hacking up some logic in assembly to
test whether we are crossing a PMD/PUD boundary
>> +
>> adr_l x0, boot_args // record the contents of
>> stp x21, x1, [x0] // x0 .. x3 at kernel entry
>> stp x2, x3, [x0, #16]
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> James
>
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.
