From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Dan Li <ashimida@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
linux@roeck-us.net, luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com,
elver@google.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, masahiroy@kernel.org,
ojeda@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, npiggin@gmail.com,
ndesaulniers@google.com, samitolvanen@google.com,
shuah@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, will@kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
llvm@lists.linux.dev, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] lkdtm: Add Shadow Call Stack tests
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:09:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202203031105.A1B4CAE6@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202203031010.0A492D114@keescook>
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 10:42:45AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> Though, having the IS_ENABLED in there makes me wonder if this test
> should instead be made _survivable_ on failure. Something like this,
> completely untested:
>
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
> static noinline void lkdtm_scs_set_lr(unsigned long *addr)
> {
> unsigned long **lr = (unsigned long **)__builtin_frame_address(0) + 1;
> *lr = addr;
> }
>
> /* Function with __noscs attribute clears its return address. */
> static noinline void __noscs lkdtm_noscs_set_lr(unsigned long *addr)
> {
> unsigned long **lr = (unsigned long **)__builtin_frame_address(0) + 1;
> *lr = addr;
> }
> #endif
>
>
> void lkdtm_CFI_BACKWARD_SHADOW(void)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
>
> /* Verify the "normal" condition of LR corruption working. */
> do {
> /* Keep label in scope to avoid compiler warning. */
> if ((volatile int)0)
> goto unexpected;
>
> pr_info("Trying to corrupt lr in a function without scs protection ...\n");
> lkdtm_noscs_set_lr(&&expected);
>
> unexpected:
> pr_err("XPASS: Unexpectedly survived lr corruption without scs?!\n");
> break;
>
> expected:
> pr_err("ok: lr corruption redirected without scs.\n");
> } while (0);
>
>
> do {
> /* Keep labe in scope to avoid compiler warning. */
> if ((volatile int)0)
> goto good_scs;
>
> pr_info("Trying to corrupt lr in a function with scs protection ...\n");
> lkdtm_scs_set_lr(&&bad_scs);
>
> good_scs:
> pr_info("ok: scs takes effect.\n");
> break;
>
> bad_scs:
> pr_err("FAIL: return address rewritten!\n");
> pr_expected_config(CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK);
> } while (0);
> #else
> pr_err("XFAIL: this test is arm64-only\n");
> #endif
> }
>
> And we should, actually, be able to make the "set_lr" functions be
> arch-specific, leaving the test itself arch-agnostic....
Yeah, as a tested example, this works for x86_64, and based on what you
had, I'd expect it to work on arm64 too:
#include <stdio.h>
static __attribute__((noinline))
void set_return_addr(unsigned long *expected, unsigned long *addr)
{
/* Use of volatile is to make sure final write isn't seen as a dead store. */
unsigned long * volatile *ret_addr = (unsigned long **)__builtin_frame_address(0) + 1;
/* Make sure we've found the right place on the stack before writing it. */
if (*ret_addr == expected)
*ret_addr = addr;
}
volatile int force_label;
int main(void)
{
do {
/* Keep labels in scope. */
if (force_label)
goto normal;
if (force_label)
goto redirected;
set_return_addr(&&normal, &&redirected);
normal:
printf("I should be skipped\n");
break;
redirected:
printf("Redirected\n");
} while (0);
return 0;
}
It does _not_ work under Clang, though, which I'm still looking at.
--
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-03 19:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-03 7:33 [PATCH v3 0/2] AARCH64: Enable GCC-based Shadow Call Stack Dan Li
2022-03-03 7:43 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] AARCH64: Add gcc Shadow Call Stack support Dan Li
2022-03-10 18:15 ` (subset) " Kees Cook
2022-03-03 7:43 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] lkdtm: Add Shadow Call Stack tests Dan Li
2022-03-03 18:42 ` Kees Cook
2022-03-03 19:09 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2022-03-04 14:54 ` Dan Li
2022-03-04 15:01 ` Dan Li
2022-03-07 15:16 ` Dan Li
2022-03-09 20:16 ` Kees Cook
2022-03-11 2:46 ` Dan Li
2022-03-04 14:34 ` Dan Li
2022-03-14 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 " Dan Li
2022-03-14 14:02 ` Dan Li
2022-04-06 1:28 ` Dan Li
2022-04-06 1:48 ` Dan Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202203031105.A1B4CAE6@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=ashimida@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox