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:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:01:53 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
        clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 01/12] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)
Message-ID: <20200422180153.GD3121@willie-the-truck>
References: <20191018161033.261971-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20200416161245.148813-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20200416161245.148813-2-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20200420171727.GB24386@willie-the-truck>
 <20200420211830.GA5081@google.com>
 <20200422173938.GA3069@willie-the-truck>
 <202004221047.3AEAECC1@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202004221047.3AEAECC1@keescook>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:51:02AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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().

But we don't do this for /anything/ else and it forces alignment
restrictions on the SCS allocation. Please either do it consistently, or
not at all.

Will