Thread (123 messages) 123 messages, 12 authors, 2018-08-14

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 20/27] x86/cet/shstk: ELF header parsing of CET

From: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date: 2018-07-11 19:37:29
Also in: linux-arch, linux-doc, linux-mm, lkml

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:31 PM Yu-cheng Yu [off-list ref] wrote:
Look in .note.gnu.property of an ELF file and check if shadow stack needs
to be enabled for the task.

Signed-off-by: H.J. Lu <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <redacted>
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/elf.c b/arch/x86/kernel/elf.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..233f6dad9c1f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/elf.c
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+#define NOTE_SIZE_BAD(n, align, max) \
+       ((n->n_descsz < 8) || ((n->n_descsz % align) != 0) || \
+        (((u8 *)(n + 1) + 4 + n->n_descsz) > (max)))
Please do not compute out-of-bounds pointers and then compare them
against an expected maximum pointer. Computing an out-of-bounds
pointer is undefined behavior according to the C99 specification,
section "6.5.6 Additive operators", paragraph 8; and in this case,
n->n_descsz is 32 bits wide, which means that even if the compiler
isn't doing anything funny, if you're operating on addresses in the
last 4GiB of virtual memory and the pointer wraps around, this could
break.
In particular, if anyone ever uses this code in a 32-bit kernel, this
is going to blow up.
Please use size comparisons instead of pointer comparisons.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+
+/*
+ * Go through the property array and look for the one
+ * with pr_type of GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_AND.
+ */
+static u32 find_x86_feature_1(u8 *buf, u32 size, u32 align)
+{
+       u8 *end = buf + size;
+       u8 *ptr = buf;
+
+       while (1) {
+               u32 pr_type, pr_datasz;
+
+               if ((ptr + 4) >= end)
+                       break;
Theoretical UB.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+               pr_type = *(u32 *)ptr;
+               pr_datasz = *(u32 *)(ptr + 4);
+               ptr += 8;
+
+               if ((ptr + pr_datasz) >= end)
+                       break;
UB, like in NOTE_SIZE_BAD().
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+               if (pr_type == GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_AND &&
+                   pr_datasz == 4)
+                       return *(u32 *)ptr;
+
+               ptr += pr_datasz;
+       }
+       return 0;
+}
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
index 0ac456b52bdd..3395f6a631d5 100644
--- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
+++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
@@ -1081,6 +1081,22 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
                goto out_free_dentry;
        }

+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PROGRAM_PROPERTIES
+
+       if (interpreter) {
+               retval = arch_setup_features(&loc->interp_elf_ex,
+                                            interp_elf_phdata,
+                                            interpreter, true);
+       } else {
+               retval = arch_setup_features(&loc->elf_ex,
+                                            elf_phdata,
+                                            bprm->file, false);
+       }
So for non-static binaries, the ELF headers of ld.so determine whether
CET will be on or off for the entire system, right? Is the intent here
that ld.so should start with CET enabled, and then either use the
compatibility bitmap or turn CET off at runtime if the executable or
one of the libraries doesn't actually work with CET?
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help