Re: [PATCH] arm64: Clear the stack

From: Laura Abbott
Date: Fri Jun 29 2018 - 16:23:06 EST


On 06/29/2018 01:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version

Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@xxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
+#define current_top_of_stack() (task_stack_page(current) + THREAD_SIZE)
+#define on_thread_stack() (on_task_stack(current, current_stack_pointer))

nit on types here. I get some warnings:

kernel/stackleak.c:55:12: warning: assignment makes integer from
pointer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
boundary = current_top_of_stack();
^
kernel/stackleak.c:65:24: warning: assignment makes integer from
pointer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
current->lowest_stack = current_top_of_stack() - THREAD_SIZE / 64;
^

So I think this needs to be:

+#define current_top_of_stack() ((unsigned long)task_stack_page(current) + \
+ THREAD_SIZE)


Argh, missed that in an amend, can fix for next version if there
are no other objections to this approach.

diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins b/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins
index a535742a1c06..972ce4ca7f6a 100644
--- a/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins
+++ b/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins
@@ -37,11 +37,14 @@ ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS

gcc-plugin-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK) += stackleak_plugin.so
gcc-plugin-cflags-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK) += -DSTACKLEAK_PLUGIN -fplugin-arg-stackleak_plugin-track-min-size=$(CONFIG_STACKLEAK_TRACK_MIN_SIZE)
+ ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
+ DISABLE_STACKLEAK_PLUGIN += -fplugin-arg-stackleak_plugin-disable
+ endif

GCC_PLUGINS_CFLAGS := $(strip $(addprefix -fplugin=$(objtree)/scripts/gcc-plugins/, $(gcc-plugin-y)) $(gcc-plugin-cflags-y))

export PLUGINCC GCC_PLUGINS_CFLAGS GCC_PLUGIN GCC_PLUGIN_SUBDIR
- export SANCOV_PLUGIN DISABLE_LATENT_ENTROPY_PLUGIN
+ export SANCOV_PLUGIN DISABLE_LATENT_ENTROPY_PLUGIN DISABLE_STACKLEAK_PLUGIN

ifneq ($(PLUGINCC),)
# SANCOV_PLUGIN can be only in CFLAGS_KCOV because avoid duplication.

If there is a v14, I think this hunk should be taken there, since it's
part of the common code.

Otherwise, this works for me and passes the lkdtm tests.

-Kees


Thanks,
Laura