| Message ID | 87pofjqlj3.fsf@possimpible.ozlabs.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 03:57 +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Hi Daniel and ppc people, > > (ppc people: this does some compile and run time bounds checking on > string functions. It's cool - currently it picks up a lot of random > things so it will require some more work across the tree, but > hopefully > it will eventually hit mainline.) > > I've tested this on ppc with pseries_le_defconfig. > > I needed a couple of the fixes from github > (https://github.com/thestinger/linux-hardened/commits/4.11) in order > to > build, specifically > https://github.com/thestinger/linux-hardened/commit/c65d6a6f309b067035 > 84a23ac2b2bda4bb363143 > https://github.com/thestinger/linux- > hardened/commit/adcec4756574a8c7f7cb5b6fa51ebeaeeae71aae By the way, Kees is working on landing these upstream as proper fixes rather than the workarounds I did there. In most cases, it's a matter of migrating from memcpy past the end of a constant string to strncpy (to make sure that the destination is still fully filled but with zeroes instead of arbitrary junk from rodata vs strcpy/strlcpy which won't cover that). A few of them are a bit weirder though. I haven't seen any false positives yet though, due to sticking to __builtin_object_size(p, 0) for now. > Once those were added, I needed to disable fortification in > prom_init.c, > as we apparently can't have new symbols there. (I don't understand > that > file so I haven't dug into it.) > > We also have problems with the feature fixup tests leading to a panic > on > boot. It relates to getting what I think are asm labels(?) and how we > address them. I have just disabled fortify here for now; I think the > code could be rewritten to take the labels as unsigned char *, but I > haven't dug into it. They probably need to be changed to use 'unsigned char foo[]' instead of 'char foo' with &foo taken as an address and used as a larger buffer. That's undefined and the compiler can assume it's limited to the size of the type used to define it which then gets enforced by these fortified wrappers rather than just used for optimization (in practice, it won't break much without these, but it could).
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 03:57 +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote: >> Hi Daniel and ppc people, >> >> (ppc people: this does some compile and run time bounds checking on >> string functions. It's cool - currently it picks up a lot of random >> things so it will require some more work across the tree, but >> hopefully >> it will eventually hit mainline.) >> >> I've tested this on ppc with pseries_le_defconfig. Yay! Thanks very much! >> >> I needed a couple of the fixes from github >> (https://github.com/thestinger/linux-hardened/commits/4.11) in order >> to >> build, specifically >> https://github.com/thestinger/linux-hardened/commit/c65d6a6f309b067035 >> 84a23ac2b2bda4bb363143 >> https://github.com/thestinger/linux- >> hardened/commit/adcec4756574a8c7f7cb5b6fa51ebeaeeae71aae > > By the way, Kees is working on landing these upstream as proper fixes > rather than the workarounds I did there. In most cases, it's a matter of > migrating from memcpy past the end of a constant string to strncpy (to > make sure that the destination is still fully filled but with zeroes > instead of arbitrary junk from rodata vs strcpy/strlcpy which won't > cover that). A few of them are a bit weirder though. I haven't seen any > false positives yet though, due to sticking to __builtin_object_size(p, > 0) for now. FWIW, all the net-dev ones have been applied for -next now. >> Once those were added, I needed to disable fortification in >> prom_init.c, >> as we apparently can't have new symbols there. (I don't understand >> that >> file so I haven't dug into it.) >> >> We also have problems with the feature fixup tests leading to a panic >> on >> boot. It relates to getting what I think are asm labels(?) and how we >> address them. I have just disabled fortify here for now; I think the >> code could be rewritten to take the labels as unsigned char *, but I >> haven't dug into it. > > They probably need to be changed to use 'unsigned char foo[]' instead of > 'char foo' with &foo taken as an address and used as a larger buffer. > That's undefined and the compiler can assume it's limited to the size of > the type used to define it which then gets enforced by these fortified > wrappers rather than just used for optimization (in practice, it won't > break much without these, but it could). We'd need something to actually extract the sizes of the asm functions. Right now, that kind of thing is done in the linker scripts, but that may be too late. -Kees
Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net> writes: > Hi Daniel and ppc people, > > (ppc people: this does some compile and run time bounds checking on > string functions. It's cool - currently it picks up a lot of random > things so it will require some more work across the tree, but hopefully > it will eventually hit mainline.) Cool! > Once those were added, I needed to disable fortification in prom_init.c, > as we apparently can't have new symbols there. (I don't understand that > file so I haven't dug into it.) We can refer to new symbols from there, we just have a script to check we don't refer to anything new inadvertently. prom_init() is sort of a shim that runs before the kernel, except it's linked with the kernel, but ideally wouldn't be, but we never bothered actually making it separate. O_o > We also have problems with the feature fixup tests leading to a panic on > boot. It relates to getting what I think are asm labels(?) and how we > address them. I have just disabled fortify here for now; I think the > code could be rewritten to take the labels as unsigned char *, but I > haven't dug into it. OK, yeah it's using asm labels to compare the patched code vs the expected result. Can probably be fixed by making them char[] like we do for other things like __start_interrupts etc. cheers
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c index dd8a04f3053a..613f79f03877 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ #undef DEBUG_PROM +/* we cannot use FORTIFY as it brings in new symbols */ +#define __NO_FORTIFY + #include <stdarg.h> #include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/string.h> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/feature-fixups.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/feature-fixups.c index f3917705c686..2eee8558df61 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/feature-fixups.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/feature-fixups.c @@ -12,6 +12,12 @@ * 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. */ +/* + * feature fixup tests do memcmp with raw addresses rather than + * objects, which panics on boot with fortify on. TODO FIXME + */ +#define __NO_FORTIFY + #include <linux/types.h> #include <linux/jump_label.h> #include <linux/kernel.h>