From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f72.google.com (mail-pl0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F226B0003 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 14:38:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f72.google.com with SMTP id 89-v6so5801476plb.18 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 11:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org. [198.145.29.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 1-v6si53618541plo.20.2018.06.07.11.38.15 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jun 2018 11:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79505208A4 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:38:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id e16-v6so19728840wmd.0 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 11:38:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180607143807.3611-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20180607143807.3611-6-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20180607143807.3611-6-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 11:38:02 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] x86/cet: ELF header parsing of Control Flow Enforcement Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Yu-cheng Yu Cc: LKML , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM , linux-arch , X86 ML , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. J. Lu" , "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Dave Hansen , Jonathan Corbet , Oleg Nesterov , Arnd Bergmann , mike.kravetz@oracle.com On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:41 AM Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > Look in .note.gnu.property of an ELF file and check if shadow stack needs > to be enabled for the task. Nice! But please structure it so it's one function that parses out all the ELF notes and some other code (a table or a switch statement) that handles them. We will probably want to add more kernel-parsed ELF notes some day, so let's structure the code to make it easier. > +static int find_cet(u8 *buf, u32 size, u32 align, int *shstk, int *ibt) > +{ > + unsigned long start = (unsigned long)buf; > + struct elf_note *note = (struct elf_note *)buf; > + > + *shstk = 0; > + *ibt = 0; > + > + /* > + * Go through the x86_note_gnu_property array pointed by > + * buf and look for shadow stack and indirect branch > + * tracking features. > + * The GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_AND entry contains only > + * one u32 as data. Do not go beyond buf_size. > + */ > + > + while ((unsigned long) (note + 1) - start < size) { > + /* Find the NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0 note. */ > + if (note->n_namesz == 4 && > + note->n_type == NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0 && > + memcmp(note + 1, "GNU", 4) == 0) { > + u8 *ptr, *ptr_end; > + > + /* Check for invalid property. */ > + if (note->n_descsz < 8 || > + (note->n_descsz % align) != 0) > + return 0; > + > + /* Start and end of property array. */ > + ptr = (u8 *)(note + 1) + 4; > + ptr_end = ptr + note->n_descsz; Exploitable bug here? You haven't checked that ptr is in bounds or that ptr + ptr_end is in bounds (or that ptr_end > ptr, for that matter). > + > + while (1) { > + u32 type = *(u32 *)ptr; > + u32 datasz = *(u32 *)(ptr + 4); > + > + ptr += 8; > + if ((ptr + datasz) > ptr_end) > + break; > + > + if (type == GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_AND && > + datasz == 4) { > + u32 p = *(u32 *)ptr; > + > + if (p & GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_SHSTK) > + *shstk = 1; > + if (p & GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_IBT) > + *ibt = 1; > + return 1; > + } > + } > + } > + > + /* > + * Note sections like .note.ABI-tag and .note.gnu.build-id > + * are aligned to 4 bytes in 64-bit ELF objects. > + */ > + note = (void *)note + ELF_NOTE_NEXT_OFFSET(note, align); A malicious value here will probably just break out of the while statement, but it's still scary. > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int check_pt_note_segment(struct file *file, > + unsigned long note_size, loff_t *pos, > + u32 align, int *shstk, int *ibt) > +{ > + int retval; > + char *note_buf; > + > + /* > + * Try to read in the whole PT_NOTE segment. > + */ > + note_buf = kmalloc(note_size, GFP_KERNEL); kmalloc() with fully user-controlled, unchecked size is not a good idea.