[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKgEketcC0jcxejw+Bmg0qUNUR7xtB8=CAstKpO-bdwfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:36:44 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Keun-O Park <kpark3469@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>, keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] arm64: usercopy: Implement stack
frame object validation
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le mercredi 25 janvier 2017 à 13:54 +0000, Will Deacon a écrit :
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
>> > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
>> > index 46c3b93..f610c44 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
>> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
>> > @@ -68,7 +68,62 @@ struct thread_info {
>> > + const void *oldframe;
>> > + const void *callee_fp = NULL;
>> > + const void *caller_fp = NULL;
>> > +
>> > + oldframe = __builtin_frame_address(1);
>> > + if (oldframe) {
>> > + callee_fp = __builtin_frame_address(2);
>> > + if (callee_fp)
>> > + caller_fp = __builtin_frame_address(3);
>> > + }
>> >
>> Which compilers have you tested this with? The GCC folks don't
>> guarantee a frame layout, and they have changed it in the past, so I
>> suspect this is pretty fragile. In particularly, if
>> __builtin_frame_address just points at the frame record, then I don't
>> think you can make assumptions about the placement of local variables
>> and arguments with respect to that.
>>
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/Return-Address.html#index-
> g_t_005f_005fbuiltin_005fframe_005faddress-3701
>
> "Calling this function with a nonzero argument can have unpredictable
> effects, including crashing the calling program. As a result, calls
> that are considered unsafe are diagnosed when the -Wframe-address
> option is in effect. Such calls should only be made in debugging
> situations."
It does work, though, and given the CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER check, I
think this is fine. The kernel explicitly disables -Wframe-address
since it gets used in a number of places.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Nexus 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.
