Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:34:57 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        "Perla, Enrico" <enrico.perla@intel.com>,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64: entry: Enable random_kstack_offset support
Message-ID: <202004201529.BB787BB@keescook>
References: <20200324203231.64324-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20200324203231.64324-6-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20200420205458.GC29998@willie-the-truck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200420205458.GC29998@willie-the-truck>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:54:58PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 01:32:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Since the compiler chooses a 4 bit alignment for the stack,
> > +	 * let's save one additional bit (9 total), which gets us up
> > +	 * near 5 bits of entropy.
> > +	 */
> > +	choose_random_kstack_offset(get_random_int() & 0x1FF);
> 
> Hmm, this comment doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, I get that 0x1ff
> is 9 bits, and that is 4+5 but so what?

Er, well, yes. I guess I was just trying to explain why there were 9
bits saved here and to document what I was seeing the compiler actually
doing with the values. (And it serves as a comparison to the x86 comment
which is explaining similar calculations in the face of x86_64 vs ia32.)

Would something like this be better?

/*
 * Since the compiler uses 4 bit alignment for the stack (1 more than
 * x86_64), let's try to match the 5ish-bit entropy seen in x86_64,
 * instead of having needlessly lower entropy. As a result, keep the
 * low 9 bits.
 */

-- 
Kees Cook