Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Mar 2023 21:36:28 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] tools/nolibc: add support for stack protector |
| |
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 04:45:08PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hello Paul, > > This is essentially Thomas' work so instead of paraphrasing his work, > I'm pasting his description below. I've tested his changes on all > supported archs, applied a tiny modification with his permission > to continue to support passing CFLAGS, and for me this is all fine. > In a short summary this adds support for stack protector to i386 and > x86_64 in nolibc, and the accompanying test to the selftest program. > > A new test category was added, "protection", which currently has a > single test. Archs that support it will report "OK" there and those > that do not will report "SKIPPED", as is already the case for tests > that cannot be run. > > This was applied on top of your dev.2023.03.20a branch. I'm reasonably > confident with the nature of the changes, so if your queue for 6.4 is > not closed yet, it can be a good target, otherwise 6.5 will be fine as > well.
I have applied and pushed it out, thank you both!
We are a little late in the process, but if testing goes well, I can't see why this cannot make the v6.4 merge window.
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks in advance! > Willy > > Thomas' description below: > > This is useful when using nolibc for security-critical tools. > Using nolibc has the advantage that the code is easily auditable and > sandboxable with seccomp as no unexpected syscalls are used. > Using compiler-assistent stack protection provides another security > mechanism. > > For this to work the compiler and libc have to collaborate. > > This patch adds the following parts to nolibc that are required by the > compiler: > > * __stack_chk_guard: random sentinel value > * __stack_chk_fail: handler for detected stack smashes > > In addition an initialization function is added that randomizes the > sentinel value. > > Only support for global guards is implemented. > Register guards are useful in multi-threaded context which nolibc does > not provide support for. > > Link: https://lwn.net/Articles/584225/ > > > Thomas Weißschuh (8): > tools/nolibc: add definitions for standard fds > tools/nolibc: add helpers for wait() signal exits > tools/nolibc: tests: constify test_names > tools/nolibc: add support for stack protector > tools/nolibc: tests: fold in no-stack-protector cflags > tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-protector > tools/nolibc: i386: add stackprotector support > tools/nolibc: x86_64: add stackprotector support > > tools/include/nolibc/Makefile | 4 +- > tools/include/nolibc/arch-i386.h | 7 ++- > tools/include/nolibc/arch-x86_64.h | 5 ++ > tools/include/nolibc/nolibc.h | 1 + > tools/include/nolibc/stackprotector.h | 53 ++++++++++++++++ > tools/include/nolibc/types.h | 2 + > tools/include/nolibc/unistd.h | 5 ++ > tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile | 11 +++- > tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++- > 9 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 tools/include/nolibc/stackprotector.h > > -- > 2.17.5 >
| |