public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
To: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: RFC: stack/heap collision vulnerability and mitigation with GCC
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:17:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <62416688.h8zfxR0s2T@polaris> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bef46e40-8004-0f80-4928-ad0795eb76ba@redhat.com>

> As some of you are likely aware, Qualys has just published fairly
> detailed information on using stack/heap clashes as an attack vector.
> Eric B, Michael M -- sorry I couldn't say more when I contact you about
> -fstack-check and some PPC specific stuff.  This has been under embargo
> for the last month.

No problem and thanks for putting together this message.

> Unfortunately, -fstack-check is actually not well suited for our purposes.
> 
> Some background.  -fstack-check was designed primarily for Ada's needs.
> It assumes the whole program is compiled with -fstack-check and it is
> designed to ensure there is enough stack space left so that if the
> program hits the guard (say via infinite recursion) the program can
> safely call into a signal handler and raise an exception.
> 
> To ensure there's always enough space to meet that design requirement,
> -fstack-check probes stack space ahead of the actual need of the code.
> 
> The assumption that all code was compiled with -fstack-check allows for
> elision of some stack probes as they are assumed to have been probed by
> earlier callers in the call chain.  This elision is safe in an
> environment where all callers use -fstack-check, but fatally flawed in a
> mixed environment.
> 
> Most ports first probe by pages for whatever space is requested, then
> after all probing is done, they actually allocate space.  This runs
> afoul of valgrind in various unpleasant ways (including crashing
> valgrind on two targets).
> 
> Only x86-linux currently uses a "moving sp" allocation and probing
> strategy.  ie, it actually allocates space, then probes the space.

Right, because the Linux kernel for x86/x86-64 is the only OS flavor that 
doesn't let you probe the stack ahead of the stack pointer.  All other 
combinations of OS and architecture we tried (and it's quite a lot) do.

> After much poking around I concluded that we really need to implement
> allocation and probing via a "moving sp" strategy.   Probing into
> unallocated areas runs afoul of valgrind, so that's a non-starter.

The reason why you cannot use this strategy on a global basis for stack 
checking is that some ABIs specify that you cannot update the stack pointer 
more than once to establish a frame; others don't explicitly care but...

> Allocating stack space, then probing the pages within the space is
> vulnerable to async signal delivery between the allocation point and the
> probe point.  If that occurs the signal handler could end up running on
> a stack that has collided with the heap.

...yes, there are difficulties with the "moving sp" strategy.

> Finally, we need not ensure the ability to handle a signal at stack
> overflow.  It is fine for the kernel to halt the process immediately if
> it detects a reference to the guard page.

In Ada it's the opposite and we use an alternate signal stack in this case.

> Dynamic (alloca) space is handled fairly generically with simple code to
> allocate a page and probe the just allocated page.

Right, it's not the most difficult part.

> Michael Matz has suggested some generic support so that we don't have to
> write target specific code for each and every target we support.  THe
> idea is to have a helper function which allocates and probes stack
> space.  THe port can then call that helper function from within its
> prologue generator.  I  think this is wise -- I wouldn't want to go
> through this exercise on every port.

Interesting.  We never convinced ourselves that this was worthwhile.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-06-20  8:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-19 17:07 Jeff Law
2017-06-19 17:29 ` Jakub Jelinek
2017-06-19 17:45   ` Jeff Law
2017-06-19 17:51     ` Jakub Jelinek
2017-06-19 21:51       ` Jeff Law
2017-06-20  8:03       ` Uros Bizjak
2017-06-20 10:18         ` Richard Biener
2017-06-20 11:10           ` Uros Bizjak
2017-06-20 12:13             ` Florian Weimer
2017-06-20 12:17               ` Uros Bizjak
2017-06-20 12:20                 ` Uros Bizjak
2017-06-20 12:27                   ` Richard Biener
2017-06-20 21:57                     ` Jeff Law
2017-06-20 15:59                 ` Jeff Law
2017-06-19 18:00   ` Richard Biener
2017-06-19 18:02     ` Richard Biener
2017-06-19 18:15       ` Florian Weimer
2017-06-19 21:57         ` Jeff Law
2017-06-19 22:08       ` Jeff Law
2017-06-20  7:50   ` Eric Botcazou
2017-06-19 17:51 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-19 17:55   ` Jakub Jelinek
2017-06-19 18:21   ` Florian Weimer
2017-06-19 21:56     ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-19 22:05       ` Jeff Law
2017-06-19 22:10         ` Florian Weimer
2017-06-19 19:05   ` Jeff Law
2017-06-19 19:45     ` Jakub Jelinek
2017-06-19 21:41       ` Jeff Law
2017-06-20  8:27     ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2017-06-20 15:50       ` Jeff Law
2017-06-19 18:12 ` Richard Kenner
2017-06-19 22:05   ` Jeff Law
2017-06-19 22:07     ` Richard Kenner
2017-06-20  8:21   ` Eric Botcazou
2017-06-20 15:50     ` Jeff Law
2017-06-20 19:48     ` Jakub Jelinek
2017-06-20 20:37       ` Eric Botcazou
2017-06-20 20:46         ` Jeff Law
2017-06-20  8:17 ` Eric Botcazou [this message]
2017-06-20 21:52   ` Jeff Law
2017-06-20 22:20     ` Eric Botcazou
2017-06-21 17:31       ` Jeff Law
2017-06-21 19:07     ` Florian Weimer
2017-06-21  7:56   ` Andreas Schwab
2017-06-20  9:27 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2017-06-20 21:39   ` Jeff Law
2017-06-21  8:41     ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2017-06-21 17:25       ` Jeff Law
2017-06-22  9:53         ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2017-06-22 15:30           ` Jeff Law
2017-06-22 16:07             ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-06-22 16:15               ` Jeff Law
2017-06-28  6:45           ` Florian Weimer
2017-07-13 23:21             ` Jeff Law
2017-07-18 19:54               ` Florian Weimer
2017-06-20 23:22 Wilco Dijkstra
2017-06-21  8:34 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2017-06-21  8:44   ` Andreas Schwab
2017-06-21  8:46     ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2017-06-21  8:46       ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2017-06-21  9:03   ` Wilco Dijkstra
2017-06-21 17:05 ` Jeff Law
2017-06-21 17:47   ` Wilco Dijkstra
2017-06-22 16:10     ` Jeff Law
2017-06-22 22:57       ` Wilco Dijkstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=62416688.h8zfxR0s2T@polaris \
    --to=ebotcazou@adacore.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=law@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).