From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 20/21] x86: Add support for CONFIG_CFI_CLANG
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 15:59:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202205161531.3339CA95@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220516183047.GM76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 08:30:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 10:15:00AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 2:54 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 01:21:58PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > > With CONFIG_CFI_CLANG, the compiler injects a type preamble
> > > > immediately before each function and a check to validate the target
> > > > function type before indirect calls:
> > > >
> > > > ; type preamble
> > > > __cfi_function:
> > > > int3
> > > > int3
> > > > mov <id>, %eax
> > > > int3
> > > > int3
> > > > function:
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > When I enable CFI_CLANG and X86_KERNEL_IBT I get:
> > >
> > > 0000000000000c80 <__cfi_io_schedule_timeout>:
> > > c80: cc int3
> > > c81: cc int3
> > > c82: b8 b5 b1 39 b3 mov $0xb339b1b5,%eax
> > > c87: cc int3
> > > c88: cc int3
> > >
> > > 0000000000000c89 <io_schedule_timeout>:
> > > c89: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
> > >
> > >
> > > That seems unfortunate. Would it be possible to get an additional
> > > compiler option to suppress the endbr for all symbols that get a __cfi_
> > > preaamble?
> >
> > What's the concern with the endbr? Dropping it would currently break
> > the CFI+IBT combination on newer hardware, no?
>
> Well, yes, but also that combination isn't very interesting. See,
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220420004241.2093-1-joao@overdrivepizza.com/T/#m5d67fb010d488b2f8eee33f1eb39d12f769e4ad2
>
> and the patch I did down-thread:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YoJKhHluN4n0kZDm@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
>
> If we have IBT, then FineIBT is a much better option than kCFI+IBT.
I'm still not convinced about this, but I'm on the fence.
Cons:
- FineIBT does callee-based hash verification, which means any
attacker-constructed memory region just has to have an endbr and nops at
"shellcode - 9". KCFI would need the region to have the hash at
"shellcode - 6" and an endbr at "shellcode". However, that hash is well
known, so it's not much protection.
- Potential performance hit due to making an additional "call" outside
the cache lines of both caller and callee.
Pros:
- FineIBT can be done without read access to the kernel text, which will
be nice in the exec-only future.
I'd kind of like the "dynamic FineIBT conversion" to be a config option,
at least at first. We could at least do performance comparisons between
them.
> Removing that superfluous endbr also shrinks the whole thing by 4 bytes.
>
> So I'm fine with the compiler generating working code for that
> combination; but please get me an option to supress it in order to save
> those pointless bytes. All this CFI stuff is enough bloat as it is.
So, in the case of "built for IBT but running on a system without IBT",
no rewrite happens, and no endbr is present (i.e. address-taken
functions have endbr emission suppressed)?
Stock kernel build:
function:
[normal code]
caller:
call __x86_indirect_thunk_r11
IBT kernel build:
function:
endbr
[normal code]
caller:
call __x86_indirect_thunk_r11
CFI kernel build:
__cfi_function:
[int3/mov/int3 preamble]
function:
[normal code]
caller:
cmpl \hash, -6(%r11)
je .Ltmp1
ud2
.Ltmp1:
call __x86_indirect_thunk_r11
CFI+IBT kernel build:
__cfi_function:
[int3/mov/int3 preamble]
function:
endbr
[normal code]
caller:
cmpl \hash, -6(%r11)
je .Ltmp1
ud2
.Ltmp1:
call __x86_indirect_thunk_r11
CFI+IBT+FineIBT kernel build:
__cfi_function:
[int3/mov/int3 preamble]
function:
/* no endbr emitted */
[normal code]
caller:
cmpl \hash, -6(%r11)
je .Ltmp1
ud2
.Ltmp1:
call __x86_indirect_thunk_r11
at boot, if IBT is detected:
- replace __cfi_function with:
endbr
call __fineibt_\hash
- replace caller with:
movl \hash, %r10d
sub $9, %r11
nop2
call *%r11
- inject all the __fineibt_\hash elements via module_alloc()
__fineibt_\hash:
xor \hash, %r10
jz 1f
ud2
1: ret
int3
--
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:[~2022-05-16 23:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-13 20:21 [RFC PATCH v2 00/21] KCFI support Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/21] efi/libstub: Filter out CC_FLAGS_CFI Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:42 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-16 15:44 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/21] arm64/vdso: " Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:42 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/21] kallsyms: Ignore __kcfi_typeid_ Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:43 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/21] cfi: Remove CONFIG_CFI_CLANG_SHADOW Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:43 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/21] cfi: Drop __CFI_ADDRESSABLE Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:44 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/21] cfi: Switch to -fsanitize=kcfi Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:46 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-15 3:41 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/21] cfi: Add type helper macros Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:49 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-16 12:28 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2022-05-16 16:23 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-16 16:04 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/21] psci: Fix the function type for psci_initcall_t Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:50 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-16 15:44 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-17 8:47 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/21] arm64: Add types to indirect called assembly functions Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:50 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/21] arm64: Add CFI error handling Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:51 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-16 16:24 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/21] arm64: Drop unneeded __nocfi attributes Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:54 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-16 16:28 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/21] treewide: Drop function_nocfi Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:54 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/21] treewide: Drop WARN_ON_FUNCTION_MISMATCH Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:54 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/21] treewide: Drop __cficanonical Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:56 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-16 16:32 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/21] objtool: Don't warn about __cfi_ preambles falling through Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:56 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/21] x86/tools/relocs: Ignore __kcfi_typeid_ relocations Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:57 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/21] x86: Add types to indirectly called assembly functions Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:58 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 18/21] x86/purgatory: Disable CFI Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:58 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 19/21] x86/vdso: " Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 21:58 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 20/21] x86: Add support for CONFIG_CFI_CLANG Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 22:02 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-16 18:57 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-15 3:19 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-16 8:32 ` David Laight
2022-05-16 16:39 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-16 21:32 ` David Laight
2022-05-16 21:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-16 22:03 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-17 6:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-17 20:36 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-17 7:56 ` David Laight
2022-05-16 9:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-16 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-16 12:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-20 13:49 ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-05-16 17:15 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-16 18:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-16 19:39 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-16 20:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-25 20:02 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-16 22:59 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2022-05-17 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-17 8:32 ` Joao Moreira
2022-05-17 8:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-17 8:48 ` David Laight
2022-05-17 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-13 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v2 21/21] init: Drop __nocfi from __init Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-14 22:03 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-16 17:16 ` Sami Tolvanen
[not found] ` <CA+icZUWr+-HjMvY1VZf+nqjTadxSTDciux0Y5Y-+p_j4o7CmXg@mail.gmail.com>
2022-05-16 17:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/21] KCFI support Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-17 7:33 ` Sedat Dilek
2022-05-17 18:49 ` Nathan Chancellor
2022-05-19 9:01 ` Sedat Dilek
2022-05-19 20:26 ` Nathan Chancellor
2022-05-19 20:41 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-17 8:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-17 20:25 ` Sami Tolvanen
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=202205161531.3339CA95@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=joao@overdrivepizza.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).