[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2021 16:42:03 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/6] stack: Optionally randomize kernel stack offset each syscall
Kees,
On Fri, Mar 19 2021 at 14:28, Kees Cook wrote:
> +/*
> + * Do not use this anywhere else in the kernel. This is used here because
> + * it provides an arch-agnostic way to grow the stack with correct
> + * alignment. Also, since this use is being explicitly masked to a max of
> + * 10 bits, stack-clash style attacks are unlikely. For more details see
> + * "VLAs" in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
VLAs are bad, VLAs to the rescue! :)
> + * The asm statement is designed to convince the compiler to keep the
> + * allocation around even after "ptr" goes out of scope.
> + */
> +void *__builtin_alloca(size_t size);
> +
> +#define add_random_kstack_offset() do { \
> + if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_KSTACK_OFFSET_DEFAULT, \
> + &randomize_kstack_offset)) { \
> + u32 offset = this_cpu_read(kstack_offset); \
Not that it matters on x86, but as this has to be called in the
interrupt disabled region of the syscall entry, shouldn't this be a
raw_cpu_read(). The asm-generic version has a preempt_disable/enable
pair around the raw read for native wordsize reads, otherwise a
irqsave/restore pair.
__this_cpu_read() is fine as well, but that has an sanity check before
the raw read when CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is on, which is harmless but
also pointless in this case.
Probably the same for the counterpart this_cpu_write().
Thanks,
tglx
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.
