On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:30:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 09:21:06PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:30:02PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

I'm clearly not explaining things well enough. I shouldn't say
"corruption", I should say "malicious manipulation". The methodology
of attacks against the stack are quite different from the other kinds
of attacks like use-after-free, heap overflow, etc. Being able to
exhaust the kernel stack (either due to deep recursion or unbounded
alloca())

I really hope we don't have alloca() use in the kernel.  Do you have
evidence to support that assertion?

IMHO alloca() (or similar) should not be present in any kernel code
because we have a limited stack - we have kmalloc() etc for that kind
of thing.

On stack variable length arrays get implemented by the compiler doing
alloca(), and we sadly have a few of those around.

I hope their size is appropriately limited, but something tells me it
would be foolish to assume that.

quoted

But yes, fully agreed on the desirability of alloca() and things.

Hmm, I wonder if -fno-builtin-alloca would prevent those... it looks
like it certainly would prevent an explicit alloca() call.

Building with -Werror=vla is exciting. :)

A lot of it is in crypto (which are relatively static sizes, just
using function callbacks), but there is plenty more.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security