[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABCJKufubiN9JdOTGUSRgmmc_0bW3SRCnk9404+zmor4kh9ZCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 11:06:31 -0700
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/17] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:35:33PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 01:49:21PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > To keep the address of the currently active shadow stack out of
> > > memory, the arm64 implementation clears this field when it loads x18
> > > and saves the current value before a context switch. The generic code
> > > doesn't expect the arch code to necessarily do so, but does allow it.
> > > This requires us to use __scs_base() when accessing the base pointer
> > > and to reset it in idle tasks before they're reused, hence
> > > scs_task_reset().
> >
> > Ok. That'd be worth a comment somewhere, since it adds a number of
> > things which would otherwise be unnecessary.
> >
> > IIUC this assumes an adversary who knows the address of a task's
> > thread_info, and has an arbitrary-read (to extract the SCS base from
> > thead_info) and an arbitrary-write (to modify the SCS area).
> >
> > Assuming that's the case, I don't think this buys much. If said
> > adversary controls two userspace threads A and B, they only need to wait
> > until A is context-switched out or in userspace, and read A's SCS base
> > using B.
> >
> > Given that, I'd rather always store the SCS base in the thread_info, and
> > simplify the rest of the code manipulating it.
>
> I'd like to keep this as-is since it provides a temporal protection.
> Having arbitrary kernel read and write at arbitrary time is a very
> powerful attack primitive, and is, IMO, not very common. Many attacks
> tend to be chains of bugs that give attackers narrow visibility in to the
> kernel at specific moments. I would say this design is more about stopping
> "current" from dumping thread_info (as there are many more opportunities
> for current to see its own thread_info compared to arbitrary addresses
> or another task's thread_info). As such, I think it's a reasonable
> precaution to take.
I'm not sure if always storing the base address in thread_info would
simplify the code that much. We could remove __scs_base() and
scs_task_reset(), which are both trivial, and drop a few instructions
in the arch-specific code that clear the field. I do agree that a
comment or two would help understand what's going on here though.
Sami
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.
