On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:08:16PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> From: Dave Young <dyo...@redhat.com>
>
> X86 will pass setup_data region while necessary, these regions could be
> overwitten by kernel due to kaslr.
>
> Thus iterate and add setup regions to mem_avoid[] in this patch.
> Up to now there isn't a official data to state the maximal entries
> setup data could use. So just set max mem avoid entries 32, hopefully
> it will be enough. This can be increased later when people report
> they are using more setup data entries.
Ew, yes, this is bad. I hadn't seen setup_data while designing the
mem_avoid stuff. I don't like the fixed 32 entry size here, so let me
consider some options. I think the mem_avoid logic can just walk the
setup_data list itself, since that's what it's for. :)
Does only kexec use this? I assume other boot loaders must be using this
too. Is there an easy test case for validating this is fixed?
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Young <dyo...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c
> index 975b07b..7e92fc8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c
> @@ -110,8 +110,9 @@ struct mem_vector {
> unsigned long size;
> };
>
> -#define MEM_AVOID_MAX 5
> +#define MEM_AVOID_MAX 32
> static struct mem_vector mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MAX];
> +static int mem_avoid_nr;
>
> static bool mem_contains(struct mem_vector *region, struct mem_vector *item)
> {
> @@ -135,6 +136,27 @@ static bool mem_overlaps(struct mem_vector *one, struct
> mem_vector *two)
> return true;
> }
>
> +static void mem_avoid_setup_data(void)
> +{
> + struct setup_data *data;
> + u64 pa_data;
> +
> + pa_data = real_mode->hdr.setup_data;
> + while (pa_data) {
> + if (mem_avoid_nr >= MEM_AVOID_MAX) {
> + debug_putstr("KASLR: too many setup_data ranges.\n");
> + return;
> + }
> + data = (struct setup_data *)pa_data;
> + if (pa_data < CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE_MAX_OFFSET) {
> + mem_avoid[mem_avoid_nr].start = pa_data;
> + mem_avoid[mem_avoid_nr].size = sizeof(*data) +
> data->len;
> + mem_avoid_nr++;
> + }
> + pa_data = data->next;
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void mem_avoid_init(unsigned long input, unsigned long input_size,
> unsigned long output, unsigned long output_size)
> {
> @@ -177,6 +199,9 @@ static void mem_avoid_init(unsigned long input, unsigned
> long input_size,
> /* Avoid stack memory. */
> mem_avoid[4].start = (unsigned long)free_mem_end_ptr;
> mem_avoid[4].size = BOOT_STACK_SIZE;
> + mem_avoid_nr = 5;
> +
> + mem_avoid_setup_data();
> }
>
> /* Does this memory vector overlap a known avoided area? */
> @@ -184,7 +209,7 @@ static bool mem_avoid_overlap(struct mem_vector *img)
> {
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < MEM_AVOID_MAX; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < mem_avoid_nr; i++) {
> if (mem_overlaps(img, &mem_avoid[i]))
> return true;
> }
> --
> 1.8.5.3
Here's an alternative... can you test it?
---
Subject: x86, kaslr: avoid setup_data when choosing kernel location
The KASLR location-choosing logic needs to avoid the setup_data list
areas as well.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c
index fc6091abedb7..7c75c22d9bc3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c
@@ -112,6 +112,7 @@ struct mem_vector {
#define MEM_AVOID_MAX 5
static struct mem_vector mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MAX];
+static struct setup_data *setup_data_avoid;
static bool mem_contains(struct mem_vector *region, struct mem_vector *item)
{
@@ -177,17 +178,30 @@ static void mem_avoid_init(unsigned long input, unsigned
long input_size,
/* Avoid stack memory. */
mem_avoid[4].start = (unsigned long)free_mem_end_ptr;
mem_avoid[4].size = BOOT_STACK_SIZE;
+
+ /* Locate the setup_data list, if it exists. */
+ setup_data_avoid = (struct setup_data *)real_mode->hdr.setup_data;
}
/* Does this memory vector overlap a known avoided area? */
static bool mem_avoid_overlap(struct mem_vector *img)
{
int i;
+ struct setup_data *ptr;
for (i = 0; i < MEM_AVOID_MAX; i++) {
if (mem_overlaps(img, &mem_avoid[i]))
return true;
}
+ for (ptr = setup_data_avoid; ptr; ptr = ptr->next) {
+ struct mem_vector avoid;
+
+ avoid.start = (u64)ptr;
+ avoid.size = sizeof(*ptr) + ptr->len;
+
+ if (mem_overlaps(img, &avoid))
+ return true;
+ }
return false;
}
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
