Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] lkdtm: Add Shadow Call Stack tests

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 3/4/22 06:54, Dan Li wrote:


On 3/3/22 11:09, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 10:42:45AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
Though, having the IS_ENABLED in there makes me wonder if this test
should instead be made _survivable_ on failure. Something like this,
completely untested:


And we should, actually, be able to make the "set_lr" functions be
arch-specific, leaving the test itself arch-agnostic....

Yeah, as a tested example, this works for x86_64, and based on what you
had, I'd expect it to work on arm64 too:

#include <stdio.h>

static __attribute__((noinline))
void set_return_addr(unsigned long *expected, unsigned long *addr)
{
     /* Use of volatile is to make sure final write isn't seen as a dead store. */
     unsigned long * volatile *ret_addr = (unsigned long **)__builtin_frame_address(0) + 1;

     /* Make sure we've found the right place on the stack before writing it. */
     if (*ret_addr == expected)
         *ret_addr = addr;
}

volatile int force_label;
int main(void)
{
     do {
         /* Keep labels in scope. */
         if (force_label)
             goto normal;
         if (force_label)
             goto redirected;

         set_return_addr(&&normal, &&redirected);
normal:
         printf("I should be skipped\n");
         break;

 From the assembly code, it seems that "&&normal" does't always equal
to the address of label "normal" when we use clang with -O2.

redirected:
         printf("Redirected\n");
     } while (0);


The address of "&&redirected" may appear in the middle of the assembly
instructions of the printf. If we unconditionally jump to "&&normal",> it may crash directly because x0 is not set correctly.

Sorry, it should be:
The address of "&&redirected" may appear in the middle of the assembly
instructions of the printf. If we unconditionally jump to "&&redirected",
it may crash directly because x0 of printf is not set correctly.

Thanks,
Dan.

     return 0;
}


It does _not_ work under Clang, though, which I'm still looking at.


AFAICT, maybe we could specify -O0 optimization to bypass this.


BTW:
Occasionally found, the following code works correctly, but i think
it doesn't solve the issue :)

#include <stdio.h>

static __attribute__((noinline))
void set_return_addr(unsigned long *expected, unsigned long *addr)
{
     /* Use of volatile is to make sure final write isn't seen as a dead store. */
     unsigned long * volatile *ret_addr = (unsigned long **)__builtin_frame_address(0) + 1;

     /* Make sure we've found the right place on the stack before writing it. */
//    if (*ret_addr == expected)
         *ret_addr = addr;
}
volatile int force_label;
int main(void)
{
     do {
         /* Keep labels in scope. */
         if (force_label)
             goto normal;
         if (force_label)
             goto redirected;

         set_return_addr(&&normal, &&redirected);
normal:
         printf("I should be skipped\n");
         break;

redirected:
         printf("Redirected\n");
         printf("\n");                //add a new printf
     } while (0);

     return 0;
}



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux