Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:52:15 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Takahiro Akashi <akashi.takahiro@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] arm64: add VMAP_STACK and
 detect out-of-bounds SP

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:48:20AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 14 July 2017 at 11:32, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:28:48PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 13 July 2017 at 18:55, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:10:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:49:48PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >> > On 13 July 2017 at 11:49, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> >> >> > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:58:50AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >> > >> On 12 July 2017 at 23:33, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > This means that we have to align the initial task, so the kernel Image
> > will grow by THREAD_SIZE. Likewise for IRQ stacks, unless we can rework
> > things such that we can dynamically allocate all of those.
> >
> 
> We can't currently do that for 64k pages, since the segment alignment
> is only 64k. But we should be able to patch that up I think

I was assuming that the linked would bump up the segment alignment if a
more-aligned object were placed inside. I guess that doesn't happen in
all cases?

... or do you mean when the EFI stub relocates the kernel, assuming
relaxed alignment constraints?

> >> >> I believe that determining whether the exception was caused by a stack
> >> >> overflow is not something we can do robustly or efficiently.
> >>
> >> Actually, if the stack pointer is within S_FRAME_SIZE of the base, and
> >> the faulting address points into the guard page, that is a pretty
> >> strong indicator that the stack overflowed. That shouldn't be too
> >> costly?
> >
> > Sure, but that's still a a heuristic. For example, that also catches an
> > unrelated vmalloc address gone wrong, while SP was close to the end of
> > the stack.
> 
> Yes, but the likelihood that an unrelated stray vmalloc access is
> within 16 KB of a stack pointer that is close ot its limit is
> extremely low, so we should be able to live with the risk of
> misidentifying it.

I guess, but at that point, why bother?

That gives us a fuzzy check for one specific "stack overflow", while not
catching the general case.

So long as we have a reliable stack trace, we can figure out that was
the case, and we don't set the expectation that we're trying to
categorize the general case (minefield and all).

Thanks,
Mark.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.