public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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