[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 21:51:29 -0800
From: Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>
To: x86-64-abi@...glegroups.com, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
keescook@...omium.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com, hjl.tools@...il.com
Subject: Fine-grained Forward CFI on top of Intel CET / IBT
Hi,
Below is a design proposal on how to support toolchain-enabled
fine-grained CFI on top of Intel CET. While all the proposed details are
open for discussion, some are explicitly in need of investigation and
feedback. A prototype implementation using LLVM and GLIBC's GRTE branch
is also linked at the end of the document. Any feedback and comments on
this are very much appreciated.
* Introduction
This proposal leverages the use of Intel's Control-Flow Enforcement
Technology (CET) feature in a way to enable a Fine-Grained
Indirect-Branch Tracking policy. As implemented in hardware, CET
introduces new endbranch (endbr) instructions that should be properly
placed in the addresses targeted by indirect branches as a way to make
them valid. This approach is deemed "Coarse-grained" because under the
policy enforced every endbr instruction is considered a valid target for
every indirect branch. Fine-grained policies are more restrictive than
that, in the sense that they enforce a given indirect branch to only
target a subset of all possible indirect branch destinations. The most
common fine-grained policy used for the control-flow enforcement is
requiring that, in an indirect call, the prototype of the targeted
function matches the prototype of the function pointer used to call it.
The above-described prototype-based approach is already used by
different tools, including Clang, through the parameter -fsanitize=cfi.
This implementation uses jump tables to enforce the prototype-based
policy what, although not harmful from the control-flow granularity
perspective, can introduce meaningful overheads. The hereby presented
approach, FineIBT, takes advantage of the CET endbranch instructions to
enforce additional prototype verifications after indirect
control-transfers to functions. This implementation materializes the
concept briefly introduced in the work by Shanbhogue et al. [1], where
the authors suggest that a software layer should augment the hardware
capabilities in providing a finer granularity on top of CET. A quick
evaluation through microbenchmarks described ahead shown that when
compared to runtimes of binaries with no CFI instrumentation, the Clang
CFI introduced high overheads ranging from 5% to 52.8%, while FineIBT
remained between 1% and 6.8%. Experimental tests executed on SPEC CPU
2017 Benchmark (nc) shown that, in the worst case, FineIBT performed
with only 3.3% additional overhead when compared to non-instrumented
binaries.
* Design and Implementation:
FineIBT consists of adding special instrumentation to the generated
binary to enforce the verification of hashes on function prologues
whenever these are indirectly called. These hashes are computed over
function's and function pointer's prototypes during compilation time and
are always referenced as instruction immediate operands, relying then on
W^X properties to prevent corruption. For enabling the verification, the
hash respective to a function pointer is set into a CPU register before
the indirect call. Since indirect calls must target endbr instructions,
the function prologue is then augmented with an endbr, similarly as in
the coarse-grained approach, followed by the hash check respective to
the function. Given that the endbr instruction is an anchor point
through which the execution flow must pass when the function is reached
indirectly, the checks cannot be bypassed. This specific instrumentation
can be seen below -- in this example, the function <foo> sets 0xdeadbeef
to the register R11, and then the function <bar> checks it before
executing. If attackers manage to control the pointer within RAX, they
won't be able to redirect control-flow in a way to enable the execution
of functions with a different prototype other than <bar>'s, since the
hash comparison will fail and the control-flow will reach the hlt
instruction.
<foo>:
...
movl 0xdeadbeef, R11d
call *RAX
...
<bar>:
endbr
xor 0xdeadbeef, R11d
jz entry
hlt
entry:
...
To reduce the possibility of reuse attacks where an attacker takes
advantage of residual contents of R11 and then exploits an indirect call
not preceded by a hash set operation, the proposed instrumentation makes
use of a xor operation instead of a regular cmp instruction. Under this
scenario, the content of R11 is always erased after each check, while a
precise match will also result in R11 contents being zeroed and, thus,
raising the flag needed for the following jz instruction to take the
right execution path. The register R11 was picked since it is considered
a scratch register in the X86-64 ABI, which prevents the need for saving
and restoring it across called functions.
The above-described instrumentation causes the hash to always be checked
whenever the function is reached, irrespectively to the given
control-flow being direct or indirect. Since direct flows don't need to
be validated and given that these unnecessary hash checks will also
require hashes to be set before direct calls take place, direct calls
have their targeted addresses incremented by an offset equivalent to the
length of the prologue instrumentation, in a way to skip the hash check
snippet and prevent undesirable overheads for useless operations.
The described instrumentation works regardless of linking-time
optimizations. Yet, it requires all objects composing a linked binary to
be FineIBT-enabled. As described, FineIBT is auto-sufficient for
statically linked binaries and is likely suitable for use-cases such as
the Linux Kernel.
* Dynamic Shared Objects Compatibility and GLIBC support
Current GLIBC support for CET-enabled binaries allows DSOs with and
without the CET capabilities to be mixed, on the cost of the policy
enforcement being disabled in the presence of feature-lacking binaries.
FineIBT support must follow similar guidelines, allowing FineIBT-enabled
DSOs to be mixed with other regular DSOs without harming the core
functionalities of the resulting process. For such, the implementation
should generate binaries with a FineIBT flag bit in the x86 features ELF
note. FineIBT, as implemented in the prototype, uses the bit 0x10 since
bits 0x1 and 0x2 are already taken for IBT and SHSTK CET features, and
0x4 and 0x8 are taken for LAM features. This way, whenever the linker is
generating a FineIBT-enabled DSO, it should flag the binary as such.
When loading a new DSO into the process's memory space (either at load
time or runtime), the loader should check and confirm that all loaded
DSOs are FineIBT-enabled through checking the FineIBT flag bit, then
setting a process' specific flag that reflects the state of the
enforcement. This way, just like in the regular CET support, when the
loader identifies a binary without the FineIBT flag bit set, it unsets
the process' specific bit for the feature, disabling the enforcement of
the policy. During runtime loading (dlopen), if the process is enforcing
FineIBT, the success of loading a non-FineIBT DSO depends on the loading
policy being permissive. If this is the case, it will lead to the
FineIBT enforcement being disabled.
Since FineIBT relies on IBT, its enablement depends on IBT being
enforced on the process. If IBT is disabled, either at load time or
during runtime, FineIBT should also be disabled.
Given the presence of the FineIBT bit in the process in an adjacent
position to the other x86 feature bits, the hash checking
instrumentation should then be extended to the following snippet which,
after a failure in the hash check, asserts if FineIBT is being enforced
before halting the application.
<bar>:
endbr
xor 0xdeadbeef, R11d
jz entry
testb 0x10, FS:0x48
jz entry
hlt
int3
nopw
entry:
...
The resulting instrumentation can be encoded in 25 bytes, which are then
followed with int3 and nopw instructions to achieve a 32-byte alignment.
At this point, deciding which check should be done first is open for
debate, since having the hash check first is optimal for a case where
FineIBT is being enforced, but more costly for processes running with
FineIBT is disabled.
** PLT
In an execution environment where libraries are present, the access to
functions that are in a different DSO will happen through the Procedure
Linkage Table (PLT). To support FineIBT, a special PLT entry is used as
shown below.
<foo@PLT>:
1:
endbr
cmp 0xdeadbeef, R11d
je 3f
testb 0x10, FS:0x48
hlt
int3
int3
...
2:
mov 0xdeadbeef, R11d
3:
jmpq foo@GOT
int3
...
The proposed PLT entry has a total of 64 bytes and is composed of three
main pieces, respectively labeled as 1:, 2: and 3:. The first one is the
piece of the PLT entry reached when the external function is called
indirectly. First, it anchors the execution with an endbr instruction,
then it checks the hash and if it is a match, it jumps to the label 3:,
otherwise following to the FineIBT bit check and eventual execution of
the hlt instruction, which breaks the invalid flow. The second piece is
positioned exactly 32 bytes after the PLT entry start and is reached
through direct calls, which have their targets incremented with an
offset, as explained in the first section of this document. This piece
will set the hash in R11d, as an indirect branch is about to take place
ahead and the to-be-reached function will likely do a hash check in its
prologue. The third piece, which is reached either through the branch in
the first piece or through sequential execution from the second piece
will then jump into the function respective to the PLT entry.
The standard lazy binding done in ELF binaries can be harmful to the
proposed scheme because, on the occasion of a target not being already
resolved, the dynamic linker will be invoked and this will lead to
control flows which may destroy the hash previously set in R11. Given
that this hash should never be stored in writable memory due to security
reasons, the design does not consider saving it on the stack for later
restore, instead it relies on eager binding, which is also widely
supported by most standard toolchains (it can be set through -Wl,-z,now
in lld). Because eager binding is in place, the need for resolving
dynamically linked symbols no longer exists. In face of that, the second
PLT used in IBT binaries (as described in the X86-64 ABI) is not needed
for FineIBT binaries.
Given that 2: does not have an endbranch instruction and, then, is only
supposed to be accessed through direct branches, the respective hash set
operations shouldn't be exploitable.
Additionally, the use of eager binding enables .GOT.PLT entries to be
read-only, which prevents the following indirect-call from being abused
and opens a window for optimization. In this scenario, the instruction
"no-track prefix" can be used to allow a jump over the target's hash
check instrumentation, preventing needless instructions from being
executed. Optimizations in the PLT scheme weren't extensively evaluated
and are still open for investigation.
To emit the PLT entry correctly, the linker needs to be informed about
the hash values respective to the functions being reached through the
entry. Since a linker handles binaries, prototype information is not
available at the moment of linking. To overcome this, the compiler was
augmented with the capability of emitting a special section named
.ibt.fine.plt in the generated object. This section brings a table with
the hashes of the external symbols which might get a PLT entry at the
moment of linking, making it possible for the linker to retrieve the
information needed to emit the PLT table. This section does not need to
be included in the final linked object and is discarded after being used
by the linker.
For functions that should not perform hash checks due to compatibility
issues (such as functions indirectly called from assembly code or those
called from pointers with opaque prototypes), the proposed
implementation brings the attribute "CoarseCfCheck" which leads the
compiler into generating the respective function without the hash checks
but with the endbr instruction, plus an instruction that zeroes R11 (to
prevent reuse attacks), plus padding nops (to ensure the 32 bytes
alignment).
* Security Considerations:
The most obvious attack vector regarding the proposed implementation is
an attempt to control both R11 and a function pointer in the moment of
an indirect call. In general, assuming that an attacker cannot diverge
control-flow arbitrarily because of the coarse-grained CET primitives
and that the proposed instrumentation overwrites the contents of R11
with a new hash right before the indirect call takes place, the window
of opportunity for such attacks is very small (but maybe existent when
interfacing with hand-written assembly code). Either way, to squeeze it
even further, the compiler can remove R11 from the bank of available
registers, only using it for holding the hashes. The expectancy is that
by having none or fewer references to R11 in the binary (except for the
hash sets and checks) attackers won't be able to control it.
Notice that using a fixed R11 is not a requirement for the whole scheme
to work, but a hardening feature.
* Hash Computation:
Up to this point, the proper way of computing the prototype hashes was
not evaluated, and this topic is still open.
* Future Improvements:
Right now, three key details remain explicitly in need for attention:
(i) how to optimize the PLT to prevent unnecessary overheads, (ii) in
which order should the hash and FineIBT flag bit be checked, and (iii)
the best way to compute the prototype hashes. Of course that all other
topics and ideas are open for discussion and improvement.
* Evaluation:
To evaluate the performance of FineIBT we performed two sets of tests.
First, we implemented a micro-benchmark with three different
applications: (i) a bubble-sort implementation in which the swap
operation was invoked indirectly; (ii) a Fibonacci sequence calculator
in which the recursion is made through indirect calls; and (iii) a dummy
loop which calls an empty function indirectly. These three applications
were selected as the indirect calls represent a significant part of
their computation, and they were compiled under the following four
different setups: (i) NO CFI: regular binary compilation, with no
special flags; (ii) CLANG CFI: binaries compiled with the default Clang
CFI, which enforces a jump-table-based policy (through -flto
-fsanitize=cfi -fsanitize-cfi-cross-dso -fvisibility=default
-fno-sanitize-cfi-canonical-jump-tables); (iii) COARSE CET: binaries
generated with IBT as supported by Clang only (through
-fcf-protection=full); and (iv) FINE CET: binaries generated with
FineIBT, as proposed above, with R11 reserved. All applications are
single-threaded and each was run 10 times. The numbers compared and
shown are the average of the runtime values observed.
Due to difficulties in compiling GLIBC with the CLANG CFI
instrumentation, we replaced the library with MUSL for these
experiments. MUSL 1.2.0 was used with some small changes [2] to add very
basic support for CET plus some modifications to make it compatible with
FineIBT.
The tests were run on a machine equipped with an 11th Gen Intel(R)
Core(TM) i5-1145G7 & 2.60GHz 8 Core CPU with 16G of RAM. The operating
system for the tests was a CET-enabled Linux Fedora 33 (Workstation
Edition). CET was verified to be active through the execution of an
application that violates the enforced policy. All applications were
dynamically linked to MUSL, which was also compiled under the same
control-flow enforcement policy as the application itself (i.e.: NO CFI,
COARSE CET, FINE CET, or CLANG CFI). As a replacement for libgcc, the
LLVM runtime library compiled with the coarse-grained IBT policy was
used for the NO CFI, CLANG, and COARSE CET setups, and with FineIBT
policy for FINE CET.
The numbers observed for these tests can be seen below. The baseline for
the overhead comparison in parenthesis is the setup without CFI (NO
CFI). The times presented are in msecs and were collected through perf
for 10 runs of each application. The parameters for the applications
were a 50000 entries randomly-generated array for bubbl (the same array
was used on each run and setup), 44 for the Fibonacci computation, and
10^10 calls for the dummy application.
| NO CFI | CLANG CFI | COARSE CET | FINE CET |
bubbl | 5729.11 | 6014.67 (4.98%) | 5713.85 (-0.27%) | 5837.13
(1.02%) |
fibon | 4539.09 | 5514.07 (21.48%) | 4508.75 (-0.67%) | 4846.83
(6.78%) |
dummy | 15296.34 | 23367.13 (52.76%) | 14687.78 (-3.98%) | 15455.24
(1.04%) |
Willing to evaluate the effects of this instrumentation on a heavier
workload, we did an experimental test running four applications from
SPEC CPU 2017 Benchmark (nc). Given the use of opaque pointers in the
applications and that no source code changes are allowed in the
benchmark, we modified FineIBT to use the same tag for all different
prototypes, emulating the actual performance overheads while not
enforcing a real fine-grained policy. We also did not run the CLANG CFI
setup. This time, the SPEC CPU 2017 applications were linked to a GLIBC
compiled accordingly to the respective setup. The GLIBC support for
FineIBT was implemented on top of a GRTE branch, which is known for
being compatible with Clang.
The numbers observed for these tests can be seen below as collected and
presented by the SPEC CPU 2017 framework, with runtimes presented in
Seconds. A total of 10 runs were executed for each application, and the
best fitting result was selected by SPEC. The baseline for the
comparison in parenthesis is, once again, the setup without CFI (NO CFI).
| NO CFI | COARSE CET | FINE CET |
600.perlbench_s | 248.83 | 247.67 (-0.47%) | 257.14 (3.34%) |
602.gcc_s | 365.47 | 369.03 ( 0.97%) | 368.75 (0.90%) |
605.mcf_s | 576.80 | 570.63 (-1.07%) | 579.86 (0.53%) |
625.x264_s | 152.63 | 152.63 ( 0.00%) | 154.21 (1.04%) |
* Related implementations
The work by Martin Abadi [3] is assumed to be the first academic paper
published on Control-Flow Integrity. Despite that, ideas that strongly
mold the current design and goals of the CFI state-of-the-art were
previously published in the document pax-future.txt [4]. The core idea
behind a fine-grained forward-edge CFI scheme on top of CET was
originally surfaced by Shanbhogue et al. [1].
From a functional perspective, when compared to the existing
fine-grained CFI policy supported by Clang [5], both schemes provide the
same level of granularity, but FineIBT does not depend on jump tables,
preventing the overheads that can be introduced by these.
Although wired differently, FineIBT is not the first CFI mechanism to
use registers to carry hashes for prototype checking. Microsoft's xFG
[6] uses a similar resource but anchors the control-flow execution with
tags embedded into the binary. Other implementations that also use tags
embedded into the binary, but don't depend on registers, are PaX RAP [7]
and kCFI [8] (both focused on the kernel context).
Up to this point, we did not compare FineIBT's performance with any
other CFI implementation besides Clang's.
When compared to schemes that use binary-embedded tags, FineIBT doesn't
depend on reading tags that are mixed with code, which makes it
compatible with approaches such as execute-only memory [9]. As is,
FineIBT also provides some degree of compatibility to dynamically adapt
and interact with non-FineIBT DSOs without requiring any binary changes,
even though this comes at the price of disabling the enforcement.
* Source-code:
Prototype implementations of FineIBT are available in:
FineIBT capable compiler:
- https://github.com/intel/fineibt_llvm/
FineIBT capable GLIBC (a fork from GRTE):
- https://github.com/intel/fineibt_glibc/
Some building scripts and a test application:
- https://github.com/intel/fineibt_testing/
The easiest way to build everything (if your environment has all the
needed tools):
git clone https://github.com/intel/fineibt_testing/
cd fineibt_testing
git clone https://github.com/intel/fineibt_llvm/
git clone https://github.com/intel/fineibt_glibc/
./build-infra.sh # and go enjoy a good cup of coffee for a few minutes...
./build-examples.sh
cd examples/build
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./ # have fun :)
You may want to edit the building scripts to adapt details, such as the
number of cores or to test different configuration setups. Also, notice
that, as is in the prototype, fineibt_llvm is emitting the same tag
regardless of the prototypes.
* Acknowledgments:
The author would like to thank Vedvyas Shanbhogue, Michael LeMay,
Hongjiu Lu (Intel), and Prof. Vasilis Kemerlis (Brown University) for
meaningful contributions and insightful discussions during the
development of this research.
* References:
1 - Vedvyas Shanbhogue, Deepak Gupta, and Ravi Sahita. 2019. Security
Analysis of Processor Instruction Set Architecture for Enforcing
Control-Flow Integrity. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop
on Hardware and Architectural Support for Security and Privacy (HASP
’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 8,
1–11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3337167.3337175
2 - Joao Moreira. Add CET IBT Support to MUSL. 2020.
https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2020/10/19/3
3 - Martín Abadi, Mihai Budiu, Úlfar Erlingsson, and Jay Ligatti. 2005.
Control-flow integrity. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on
Computer and communications security (CCS ’05). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 340–353.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1102120.1102165
4 - PaX Team. 2003. pax-future.txt.
https://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/pax-future.txt
5 - Clang 12 Documentation. Control Flow Integrity.
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.html
6 - David "dwizzzle" Weston. Bluehat Shanghai 2019. Advanced Windows
Security. https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE37dMC
7 - PaX Team. 2015. RAP: RIP ROP.
https://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/PaXTeam-H2HC15-RAP-RIP-ROP.pdf.
8 - Joao Moreira, Sandro Rigo, Michalis Polychronakis, and Vasileios P.
Kemerlis. 2017. Drop the ROP: Fine-Grained Control-Flow Integrity for
the Linux Kernel. BLACK HAT ASIA 2017, Singapore.
https://github.com/kcfi/docs/blob/master/kCFI_whitepaper.pdf
9 - Rick Edgecombe. 2019. XOM for KVM guest userspace.
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20191003212400.31130/
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.
