From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 07:47:46 +1100 From: "Tobin C. Harding" Message-ID: <20171207204746.GI2191@eros> References: <1512516827-29797-1-git-send-email-alex.popov@linux.com> <1512516827-29797-6-git-send-email-alex.popov@linux.com> <5fb044ec-cf1e-6281-01a9-c845b738914e@linux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5fb044ec-cf1e-6281-01a9-c845b738914e@linux.com> Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v6 5/6] fs/proc: Show STACKLEAK metrics in the /proc file system To: Alexander Popov Cc: Laura Abbott , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Kees Cook , PaX Team , Brad Spengler , Ingo Molnar , Andy Lutomirski , Tycho Andersen , Mark Rutland , Ard Biesheuvel , Borislav Petkov , Thomas Gleixner , "H . Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , x86@kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 10:09:27AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote: > Hello Laura and Kees, > > [adding Tobin C. Harding] > > On 06.12.2017 22:22, Laura Abbott wrote: > > On 12/05/2017 03:33 PM, Alexander Popov wrote: > >> Introduce CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS providing STACKLEAK information about > >> tasks via the /proc file system. In particular, /proc//lowest_stack > >> shows the current lowest_stack value and its final value from the previous > >> syscall. That information can be useful for estimating the STACKLEAK > >> performance impact for different workloads. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Popov > >> --- > >> arch/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++ > >> arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S | 4 ++++ > >> arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 4 ++++ > >> arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 3 +++ > >> arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 3 +++ > >> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c | 3 +++ > >> arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 3 +++ > >> fs/proc/base.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > >> 8 files changed, 45 insertions(+) > > [...] > > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS > >> +static int proc_lowest_stack(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns, > >> + struct pid *pid, struct task_struct *task) > >> +{ > >> + seq_printf(m, "prev_lowest_stack: %pK\nlowest_stack: %pK\n", > >> + (void *)task->thread.prev_lowest_stack, > >> + (void *)task->thread.lowest_stack); > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> +#endif /* CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS */ > >> + > > > > This just prints the hashed value with the new pointer leak work. > > I don't think we want to print the fully exposed value via %px so > > it's not clear how valuable this proc file is now. > > Yes, I tested that before sending the patch. I was confused when I saw the > hashed values. But setting kptr_restrict to 1 fixed that for me: > > root@hobbit:~# cat /proc/2627/lowest_stack > prev_lowest_stack: 00000000ed8ca991 > lowest_stack: 0000000040579d76 > root@hobbit:~# echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/kptr_restrict > root@hobbit:~# cat /proc/2627/lowest_stack > prev_lowest_stack: ffffc9000094fdb8 > lowest_stack: ffffc9000094f9e0 > > However, Documentation/printk-formats.txt and Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt > don't specify that behaviour. thanks for pointing this out. Yes, %pK hashes the address now when kptr_restrict==0 And yes, I forgot to update the docs :( will amend. thanks, Tobin.