Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:01:21 -0800 | From | Kees Cook <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: Revert x86_64 and arm64 ELF_ET_DYN_BASE base |
| |
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 08:47:09AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 at 07:50, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > *extreme thread[1] necromancy* > > > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:15:42PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > Moving the x86_64 and arm64 PIE base from 0x555555554000 to 0x000100000000 > > > broke AddressSanitizer. This is a partial revert of: > > > > > > commit eab09532d400 ("binfmt_elf: use ELF_ET_DYN_BASE only for PIE") > > > commit 02445990a96e ("arm64: move ELF_ET_DYN_BASE to 4GB / 4MB") > > > > > > The AddressSanitizer tool has hard-coded expectations about where > > > executable mappings are loaded. The motivation for changing the PIE > > > base in the above commits was to avoid the Stack-Clash CVEs that > > > allowed executable mappings to get too close to heap and stack. This > > > was mainly a problem on 32-bit, but the 64-bit bases were moved too, > > > in an effort to proactively protect those systems (proofs of concept > > > do exist that show 64-bit collisions, but other recent changes to fix > > > stack accounting and setuid behaviors will minimize the impact). > > > > I happened to be looking at this again today, and wondered where things > > stood. It seems like ASan's mappings are documented here: > > https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerAlgorithm#64-bit > > > > This implies that it would be safe to move the ELF_ET_DYN_BASE from > > 0x555555554000 down to 0x200000000000, since the shadow map ends at > > 0x10007fff7fff. (Well, anything above there would work, I was just > > picking a "round" number above it. We could just as well use > > 0x100080000000, I think.) > > > > Is this correct? I'd like to open up some more room between mmap and > > stack...
Thanks for the details!
> Note that there is also TSAN and MSAN with their own mappings. > These are also different per-arch, e.g. TSAN/Linux/x86_64: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d2a26a7bd5fc7cc5752337b7f4f999642feb37dc/compiler-rt/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_platform.h#L48-L58 > Search "linux/" in that file for other arches, e.g.: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d2a26a7bd5fc7cc5752337b7f4f999642feb37dc/compiler-rt/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_platform.h#L156-L165 > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d2a26a7bd5fc7cc5752337b7f4f999642feb37dc/compiler-rt/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_platform.h#L187-L196 > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d2a26a7bd5fc7cc5752337b7f4f999642feb37dc/compiler-rt/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_platform.h#L218-L227 > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d2a26a7bd5fc7cc5752337b7f4f999642feb37dc/compiler-rt/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_platform.h#L252-L263
Depending on VA size, these are effectively all below 0x3800 0000 0000.
> > And MSAN mappings: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d2a26a7bd5fc7cc5752337b7f4f999642feb37dc/compiler-rt/lib/msan/msan.h#L44-L61
These are all below 0x1000 0000 0000.
So there probably isn't much benefit in reducing the PIE program position below the current 0x55....
Okay, thanks!
-- Kees Cook
| |