x86: add CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR self-test
This patch adds a simple self-test capability to the stackprotector feature. The test deliberately overflows a stack buffer and then checks if the canary trap function gets called. Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
This commit is contained in:
parent
113c5413cf
commit
54371a43a6
1 changed files with 68 additions and 0 deletions
|
@ -324,14 +324,82 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(warn_on_slowpath);
|
||||||
#endif
|
#endif
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
#ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
|
#ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
static unsigned long __stack_check_testing;
|
||||||
|
/*
|
||||||
|
* Self test function for the stack-protector feature.
|
||||||
|
* This test requires that the local variable absolutely has
|
||||||
|
* a stack slot, hence the barrier()s.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
static noinline void __stack_chk_test_func(void)
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
unsigned long foo;
|
||||||
|
barrier();
|
||||||
|
/*
|
||||||
|
* we need to make sure we're not about to clobber the return address,
|
||||||
|
* while real exploits do this, it's unhealthy on a running system.
|
||||||
|
* Besides, if we would, the test is already failed anyway so
|
||||||
|
* time to pull the emergency brake on it.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
if ((unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0) ==
|
||||||
|
*(((unsigned long *)&foo)+1)) {
|
||||||
|
printk(KERN_ERR "No -fstack-protector-stack-frame!\n");
|
||||||
|
return;
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
#ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
|
||||||
|
/* We also don't want to clobber the frame pointer */
|
||||||
|
if ((unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0) ==
|
||||||
|
*(((unsigned long *)&foo)+2)) {
|
||||||
|
printk(KERN_ERR "No -fstack-protector-stack-frame!\n");
|
||||||
|
return;
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
#endif
|
||||||
|
barrier();
|
||||||
|
if (current->stack_canary == *(((unsigned long *)&foo)+1))
|
||||||
|
*(((unsigned long *)&foo)+1) = 0;
|
||||||
|
else
|
||||||
|
printk(KERN_ERR "No -fstack-protector canary found\n");
|
||||||
|
barrier();
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
static int __stack_chk_test(void)
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
printk(KERN_INFO "Testing -fstack-protector-all feature\n");
|
||||||
|
__stack_check_testing = (unsigned long)&__stack_chk_test_func;
|
||||||
|
__stack_chk_test_func();
|
||||||
|
if (__stack_check_testing) {
|
||||||
|
printk(KERN_ERR "-fstack-protector-all test failed\n");
|
||||||
|
WARN_ON(1);
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
return 0;
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
/*
|
/*
|
||||||
* Called when gcc's -fstack-protector feature is used, and
|
* Called when gcc's -fstack-protector feature is used, and
|
||||||
* gcc detects corruption of the on-stack canary value
|
* gcc detects corruption of the on-stack canary value
|
||||||
*/
|
*/
|
||||||
void __stack_chk_fail(void)
|
void __stack_chk_fail(void)
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
|
if (__stack_check_testing == (unsigned long)&__stack_chk_test_func) {
|
||||||
|
long delta;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
delta = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0) -
|
||||||
|
__stack_check_testing;
|
||||||
|
/*
|
||||||
|
* The test needs to happen inside the test function, so
|
||||||
|
* check if the return address is close to that function.
|
||||||
|
* The function is only 2 dozen bytes long, but keep a wide
|
||||||
|
* safety margin to avoid panic()s for normal users regardless
|
||||||
|
* of the quality of the compiler.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
if (delta >= 0 && delta <= 400) {
|
||||||
|
__stack_check_testing = 0;
|
||||||
|
return;
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
panic("stack-protector: Kernel stack is corrupted in: %p\n",
|
panic("stack-protector: Kernel stack is corrupted in: %p\n",
|
||||||
__builtin_return_address(0));
|
__builtin_return_address(0));
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__stack_chk_fail);
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__stack_chk_fail);
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
late_initcall(__stack_chk_test);
|
||||||
#endif
|
#endif
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue