lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 01/12] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 06:39:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:18:30PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:17:28PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > + * The shadow call stack is aligned to SCS_SIZE, and grows
> > > > + * upwards, so we can mask out the low bits to extract the base
> > > > + * when the task is not running.
> > > > + */
> > > > + return (void *)((unsigned long)task_scs(tsk) & ~(SCS_SIZE - 1));
> > >
> > > Could we avoid forcing this alignment it we stored the SCS pointer as a
> > > (base,offset) pair instead? That might be friendlier on the allocations
> > > later on.
> >
> > The idea is to avoid storing the current task's shadow stack address in
> > memory, which is why I would rather not store the base address either.
>
> What I mean is that, instead of storing the current shadow stack pointer,
> we instead store a base and an offset. We can still clear the base, as you
> do with the pointer today, and I don't see that the offset is useful to
> an attacker on its own.
>
> But more generally, is it really worthwhile to do this clearing at all? Can
> you (or Kees?) provide some justification for it, please? We don't do it
> for anything else, e.g. the pointer authentication keys, so something
> feels amiss here.

It's a hardening step to just reduce the lifetime of a valid address
exposed in memory. In fact, since there is a cache, I think it should be
wiped even in scs_release().

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-22 19:52    [W:0.275 / U:3.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site