Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
To:     Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, diana.craciun@nxp.com,
        christophe.leroy@c-s.fr, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
        paulus@samba.org, npiggin@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, oss@buserror.net
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhaohongjiang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] implement KASLR for powerpc/fsl_booke/64
In-Reply-To: <8171d326-5138-4f5c-cff6-ad3ee606f0c2@huawei.com>
References: <20200206025825.22934-1-yanaijie@huawei.com> <87tv3drf79.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> <8171d326-5138-4f5c-cff6-ad3ee606f0c2@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:41:46 +1100
Message-ID: <87r1yhr2x1.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com> writes:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> =E5=9C=A8 2020/2/26 15:16, Daniel Axtens =E5=86=99=E9=81=93:
>> Hi Jason,
>>=20
>>> This is a try to implement KASLR for Freescale BookE64 which is based on
>>> my earlier implementation for Freescale BookE32:
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=3D131718
>>>
>>> The implementation for Freescale BookE64 is similar as BookE32. One
>>> difference is that Freescale BookE64 set up a TLB mapping of 1G during
>>> booting. Another difference is that ppc64 needs the kernel to be
>>> 64K-aligned. So we can randomize the kernel in this 1G mapping and make
>>> it 64K-aligned. This can save some code to creat another TLB map at
>>> early boot. The disadvantage is that we only have about 1G/64K =3D 16384
>>> slots to put the kernel in.
>>>
>>>      KERNELBASE
>>>
>>>            64K                     |--> kernel <--|
>>>             |                      |              |
>>>          +--+--+--+    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+    +--+--+
>>>          |  |  |  |....|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |....|  |  |
>>>          +--+--+--+    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+    +--+--+
>>>          |                         |                        1G
>>>          |----->   offset    <-----|
>>>
>>>                                kernstart_virt_addr
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if the slot numbers is enough or the design has any
>>> defects. If you have some better ideas, I would be happy to hear that.
>>>
>>> Thank you all.
>>>
>>=20
>> Are you making any attempt to hide kernel address leaks in this series?
>
> Yes.
>
>> I've just been looking at the stackdump code just now, and it directly
>> prints link registers and stack pointers, which is probably enough to
>> determine the kernel base address:
>>=20
>>                    SPs:               LRs:             %pS pointer
>> [    0.424506] [c0000000de403970] [c000000001fc0458] dump_stack+0xfc/0x1=
54 (unreliable)
>> [    0.424593] [c0000000de4039c0] [c000000000267eec] panic+0x258/0x5ac
>> [    0.424659] [c0000000de403a60] [c0000000024d7a00] mount_block_root+0x=
634/0x7c0
>> [    0.424734] [c0000000de403be0] [c0000000024d8100] prepare_namespace+0=
x1ec/0x23c
>> [    0.424811] [c0000000de403c60] [c0000000024d7010] kernel_init_freeabl=
e+0x804/0x880
>>=20
>> git grep \\\"REG\\\" arch/powerpc shows a few other uses like this, all
>> in process.c or in xmon.
>>=20
>
> Thanks for reminding this.
>
>> Maybe replacing the REG format string in KASLR mode would be sufficient?
>>=20
>
> Most archs have removed the address printing when dumping stack. Do we=20
> really have to print this?
>
> If we have to do this, maybe we can use "%pK" so that they will be=20
> hidden from unprivileged users.

I suspect that you will find it easier to convince people to accept a
change to %pK than removal :)

BTW, I have a T4240RDB so I might be able to test this series at some
point - do I need an updated bootloader to pass in a random seed, or is
the kernel able to get enough randomness by itself? (Sorry if this is
explained elsewhere in the series, I have only skimmed it lightly!)

Regards,
Daniel
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>> Regards,
>> Daniel
>>=20
>>=20
>>> v2->v3:
>>>    Fix build error when KASLR is disabled.
>>> v1->v2:
>>>    Add __kaslr_offset for the secondary cpu boot up.
>>>
>>> Jason Yan (6):
>>>    powerpc/fsl_booke/kaslr: refactor kaslr_legal_offset() and
>>>      kaslr_early_init()
>>>    powerpc/fsl_booke/64: introduce reloc_kernel_entry() helper
>>>    powerpc/fsl_booke/64: implement KASLR for fsl_booke64
>>>    powerpc/fsl_booke/64: do not clear the BSS for the second pass
>>>    powerpc/fsl_booke/64: clear the original kernel if randomized
>>>    powerpc/fsl_booke/kaslr: rename kaslr-booke32.rst to kaslr-booke.rst
>>>      and add 64bit part
>>>
>>>   .../{kaslr-booke32.rst =3D> kaslr-booke.rst}    | 35 +++++++--
>>>   arch/powerpc/Kconfig                          |  2 +-
>>>   arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64e.S          | 23 ++++++
>>>   arch/powerpc/kernel/head_64.S                 | 14 ++++
>>>   arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c                |  4 +-
>>>   arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_decl.h                    | 19 ++---
>>>   arch/powerpc/mm/nohash/kaslr_booke.c          | 71 +++++++++++++------
>>>   7 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>>   rename Documentation/powerpc/{kaslr-booke32.rst =3D> kaslr-booke.rst}=
 (59%)
>>>
>>> --=20
>>> 2.17.2
>>=20
>> .
>>=20