Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Optionally randomize kernel stack offset each syscall

Kees Cook
2020-03-24T23:07:58Z

[-enrico, who is bouncing]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:28:35PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 9:32 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > This is a continuation and refactoring of Elena's earlier effort to add
> > kernel stack base offset randomization. In the time since the previous
> > discussions, two attacks[1][2] were made public that depended on stack
> > determinism, so we're no longer in the position of "this is a good idea
> > but we have no examples of attacks". :)
> [...]
> > [1] https://a13xp0p0v.github.io/2020/02/15/CVE-2019-18683.html
>
> This one only starts using the stack's location after having parsed
> it out of dmesg (which in any environment that wants to provide a
> reasonable level of security really ought to be restricted to root),
> right? If you give people read access to dmesg, they can leak all
> sorts of pointers; not just the stack pointer, but also whatever else
> happens to be in the registers at that point - which is likely to give
> the attacker more ways to place controlled data at a known location.
> See e.g. <https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-cache-invalidation-bug-in-linux.html>,
> which leaks the pointer to a BPF map out of dmesg.

It was mentioned that it would re-use the base across syscalls, so this
defense would have frustrated it.

More to my point was that there still are attacks using a deterministic
stack as part of the exploit chain. We have a low-cost way to make that
go away.

> Also, are you sure that it isn't possible to make the syscall that
> leaked its stack pointer never return to userspace (via ptrace or
> SIGSTOP or something like that), and therefore never realign its
> stack, while keeping some controlled data present on the syscall's
> stack?
>
> > [2] https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/125357/2/374717.pdf
>
> That's a moderately large document; which specific part are you referencing?

IIRC, section 3.3 discusses using the stack for CFI bypass, though
thinking about it again, it may have been targeting pt_regs. I'll
double check and remove this reference if that's the case.

But, as I mention, this is proactive and I'd like to stop yet more
things from being able to depend on the stack location.

--
Kees Cook