> On Nov 14, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ----- On Nov 14, 2017, at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> One thing I kept however that diverge from your recommendation is the
> "sign" parameter to the rseq syscall. I prefer this flexible
> approach to a hardcoded signature value. We never know when we may
> need to randomize or change this in the future.
>
> Regarding abort target signature the vs x86 disassemblers, I used a
> 5-byte no-op on x86 32/64:
>
> x86-32: nopl <sig>
> x86-64: nopl <sig>(%rip)
I still don't see how this can possibly work well with libraries. If
glibc or whatever issues the syscall and registers some signature,
that signature *must* match the expectation of all libraries used in
that thread or it's not going to work. I can see two reasonable ways
to handle it:
1. The signature is just a well-known constant. If you have an rseq
abort landing site, you end up with something like:
nopl $11223344(%rip)
landing_site:
or whatever the constant is.
2. The signature varies depending on the rseq_cs in use. So you get:
static struct rseq_cs this_cs = {
.signature = 0x55667788;
...
};
and then the abort landing site has:
nopl $11223344(%rip)
nopl $55667788(%rax)
landing_site:
The former is a bit easier to deal with. The latter has the nice
property that you can't subvert one rseq_cs to land somewhere else,
but it's not clear to me how what actual attack this prevents, so I
think I prefer #1. I just think that your variant is asking for
trouble down the road with incompatible userspace.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
