Re: rseq/arm32: choosing rseq code signature

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>]

----- On Apr 11, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Will Deacon will.deacon@arm.com wrote:

> Hi Mathieu,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 04:29:19PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Apr 9, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>> mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:
>> > We are about to include the code signature required prior to restartable
>> > sequences abort handlers into glibc, which will make this ABI choice final.
>> > We need architecture maintainer input on that signature value.
>> > 
>> > That code signature is placed before each abort handler, so the kernel can
>> > validate that it is indeed jumping to an abort handler (and not some
>> > arbitrary attacker-chosen code). The signature is never executed.
>> > 
>> > The current discussion thread on the glibc mailing list leads us towards
>> > using a trap with uncommon immediate operand, which simplifies integration
>> > with disassemblers, emulators, makes it easier to debug if the control
>> > flow gets redirected there by mistake, and is nicer for some architecture's
>> > speculative execution.
>> > 
>> > We can have different signatures for each sub-architecture, as long as they
>> > don't have to co-exist within the same process. We can special-case with
>> > #ifdef for each sub-architecture and endianness if need be. If the architecture
>> > has instruction set extensions that can co-exist with the architecture
>> > instruction set within the same process (e.g. thumb for arm), we need to take
>> > into account to which instruction the chosen signature value would map (and
>> > possibly decide if we need to extend rseq to support many signatures).
>> > 
>> > Here is an example of rseq signature definition template:
>> > 
>> > /*
>> > * TODO: document trap instruction objdump output on each sub-architecture
>> > * instruction sets, as well as instruction set extensions.
>> > */
>> > #define RSEQ_SIG 0x########
>> > 
>> > Ideally we'd need a patch on top of the Linux kernel
>> > tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-arm.h file that updates
>> > the signature value, so I can then pick it up for the glibc
>> > patchset.
>> 
>> Would the following diff work for you ? If so, can I get your
>> acked-by ?
> 
> I had a quick chat with Richard and Peter (CC'd), since they're much more
> familiar with the A32 instruction set than I am and also have a better view
> of what might already be in use.
> 
> Peter suggests that anything of the form 0xe7fxdefx should trap in both A32
> and T32, although it does assemble to UDF; B <imm11> in T16. I'm not sure we
> should get too obsessed with trying to encode a signature that universally
> decodes to a trap.

That's a nice trick.

> 
> Whatever you choose, it would be worth checking that it doesn't clash with
> other allocations such as software breakpoints in GDB.

GDB seems to have [1] :

#define ARM_LE_BREAKPOINT {0xFE,0xDE,0xFF,0xE7}
#define ARM_BE_BREAKPOINT {0xE7,0xFF,0xDE,0xFE}
#define THUMB_LE_BREAKPOINT {0xbe,0xbe}
#define THUMB_BE_BREAKPOINT {0xbe,0xbe}

None of which match the value you hint at.

So I could pick "0xe7f5def3", which would map to the following comment:

/*
 * RSEQ_SIG uses the udf A32 instruction with an uncommon immediate operand
 * value 0x5de3. This traps if user-space reaches this instruction by mistake,
 * and the uncommon operand ensures the kernel does not move the instruction
 * pointer to attacker-controlled code on rseq abort.
 *
 * The instruction pattern in the A32 instruction set is:
 *
 * e7f5def3    udf    #24035    ; 0x5de3
 *
 * This translates to the following instruction pattern in the T16 instruction
 * set:
 *
 * little endian:
 * def3        udf    #243      ; 0xf3
 * e7f5        b.n    <7f5>
 *
 * big endian:
 * e7f5        b.n    <7f5>
 * def3        udf    #243      ; 0xf3
 */
#define RSEQ_SIG        0xe7f5def3

Thoughts ?

Thanks!

Mathieu

[1] https://github.com/bminor/binutils-gdb/blob/master/gdb/arm-tdep.c#L7705-L7742

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com