Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] stackleak: rework poison scanning

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>]

On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 04:51:35PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> Hello Mark!
> 
> On 27.04.2022 20:31, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Currently we over-estimate the region of stack which must be erased.
> > 
> > To determine the region to be erased, we scan downards for a contiguous
> > block of poison values (or the low bound of the stack). There are a few
> > minor problems with this today:
> > 
> > * When we find a block of poison values, we include this block within
> >    the region to erase.
> > 
> >    As this is included within the region to erase, this causes us to
> >    redundantly overwrite 'STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH' (128) bytes with
> >    poison.
> 
> Right, this can be improved.
> 
> > * As the loop condition checks 'poison_count <= depth', it will run an
> >    additional iteration after finding the contiguous block of poison,
> >    decrementing 'erase_low' once more than necessary.
> 
> Actually, I think the current code is correct.
> 
> I'm intentionally searching one poison value more than
> STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH to avoid the corner case. See the BUILD_BUG_ON
> assertion in stackleak_track_stack() that describes it:
> 
> /*
>  * Having CONFIG_STACKLEAK_TRACK_MIN_SIZE larger than
>  * STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH makes the poison search in
>  * stackleak_erase() unreliable. Let's prevent that.
>  */
> BUILD_BUG_ON(CONFIG_STACKLEAK_TRACK_MIN_SIZE > STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH);

I had read that, but as written that doesn't imply that it's necessary to scan
one more element than STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH, nor why. I'm more than happy to
change the logic, but I think we need a very clear explanation as to why we
need to scan the specific number of bytes we scan, and we should account for
that *within* STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH for clarity.

> >    As this is included within the region to erase, this causes us to
> >    redundantly overwrite an additional unsigned long with poison.
> > 
> > * As we always decrement 'erase_low' after checking an element on the
> >    stack, we always include the element below this within the region to
> >    erase.
> > 
> >    As this is included within the region to erase, this causes us to
> >    redundantly overwrite an additional unsigned long with poison.
> > 
> >    Note that this is not a functional problem. As the loop condition
> >    checks 'erase_low > task_stack_low', we'll never clobber the
> >    STACK_END_MAGIC. As we always decrement 'erase_low' after this, we'll
> >    never fail to erase the element immediately above the STACK_END_MAGIC.
> 
> Right, I don't see any bug in the current erasing code.
> 
> When I wrote the current code, I carefully checked all the corner cases. For
> example, on the first stack erasing, the STACK_END_MAGIC was not
> overwritten, but the memory next to it was erased. Same for the beginning of
> the stack: I carefully checked that no unpoisoned bytes were left on the
> thread stack.
> 
> > In total, this can cause us to erase `128 + 2 * sizeof(unsigned long)`
> > bytes more than necessary, which is unfortunate.
> > 
> > This patch reworks the logic to find the address immediately above the
> > poisoned region, by finding the lowest non-poisoned address. This is
> > factored into a stackleak_find_top_of_poison() helper both for clarity
> > and so that this can be shared with the LKDTM test in subsequent
> > patches.
> 
> You know, I wrote stackleak_erase() in very plain C. I wanted a compiler to
> generate assembly that is very close to the original asm version. I worried
> that compilers might do weird stuff with the local variables and the stack
> pointer.
> 
> So I checked stackleak for gcc versions 4.8, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 on
> x86_64, i386 and arm64. This is my project that helped with this work:
> https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-build-containers

I've used the kernel.org cross toolchains, as published at:

  https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

> Mark, in this patch series you use many local variables and helper functions.
> Honestly, this worries me. For example, compilers can (and usually do)
> ignore the presence of the 'inline' specifier for the purpose of
> optimization.

I've deliberately used `__always_inline` rather than regular `inline` to
prevent code being placed out-of-line. As mentioned in oether replies it has a
stronger semantic.

Thanks,
Mark.

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >   include/linux/stackleak.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   kernel/stackleak.c        | 18 ++++--------------
> >   2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/stackleak.h b/include/linux/stackleak.h
> > index 467661aeb4136..c36e7a3b45e7e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/stackleak.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/stackleak.h
> > @@ -42,6 +42,32 @@ stackleak_task_high_bound(const struct task_struct *tsk)
> >   	return (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(tsk);
> >   }
> > +/*
> > + * Find the address immediately above the poisoned region of the stack, where
> > + * that region falls between 'low' (inclusive) and 'high' (exclusive).
> > + */
> > +static __always_inline unsigned long
> > +stackleak_find_top_of_poison(const unsigned long low, const unsigned long high)
> > +{
> > +	const unsigned int depth = STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH / sizeof(unsigned long);
> > +	unsigned int poison_count = 0;
> > +	unsigned long poison_high = high;
> > +	unsigned long sp = high;
> > +
> > +	while (sp > low && poison_count < depth) {
> > +		sp -= sizeof(unsigned long);
> > +
> > +		if (*(unsigned long *)sp == STACKLEAK_POISON) {
> > +			poison_count++;
> > +		} else {
> > +			poison_count = 0;
> > +			poison_high = sp;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return poison_high;
> > +}
> > +
> >   static inline void stackleak_task_init(struct task_struct *t)
> >   {
> >   	t->lowest_stack = stackleak_task_low_bound(t);
> > diff --git a/kernel/stackleak.c b/kernel/stackleak.c
> > index ba346d46218f5..afd54b8e10b83 100644
> > --- a/kernel/stackleak.c
> > +++ b/kernel/stackleak.c
> > @@ -74,20 +74,10 @@ static __always_inline void __stackleak_erase(void)
> >   {
> >   	const unsigned long task_stack_low = stackleak_task_low_bound(current);
> >   	const unsigned long task_stack_high = stackleak_task_high_bound(current);
> > -	unsigned long erase_low = current->lowest_stack;
> > -	unsigned long erase_high;
> > -	unsigned int poison_count = 0;
> > -	const unsigned int depth = STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH / sizeof(unsigned long);
> > -
> > -	/* Search for the poison value in the kernel stack */
> > -	while (erase_low > task_stack_low && poison_count <= depth) {
> > -		if (*(unsigned long *)erase_low == STACKLEAK_POISON)
> > -			poison_count++;
> > -		else
> > -			poison_count = 0;
> > -
> > -		erase_low -= sizeof(unsigned long);
> > -	}
> > +	unsigned long erase_low, erase_high;
> > +
> > +	erase_low = stackleak_find_top_of_poison(task_stack_low,
> > +						 current->lowest_stack);
> >   #ifdef CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS
> >   	current->prev_lowest_stack = erase_low;
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel