On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:27:14AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <t...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 10:55 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> This fixes two issues with the arm64 brk randomziation. First, the > >> STACK_RND_MASK was being used incorrectly. The original code was: > >> > >> unsigned long range_end = base + (STACK_RND_MASK << PAGE_SHIFT) + 1; > >> > >> STACK_RND_MASK is 0x7ff (32-bit) or 0x3ffff (64-bit), with 4K pages where > >> PAGE_SHIFT is 12: > >> > >> #define STACK_RND_MASK (test_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT) ? \ > >> 0x7ff >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 12) : > >> \ > >> 0x3ffff >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 12)) > >> > >> This means the resulting offset from base would be 0x7ff0001 or > >> 0x3ffff0001, > >> which is wrong since it creates an unaligned end address. It was likely > >> intended to be: > >> > >> unsigned long range_end = base + ((STACK_RND_MASK + 1) << PAGE_SHIFT) > >> > >> Which would result in offsets of 0x800000 (32-bit) and 0x40000000 (64-bit). > >> > >> However, even this corrected 32-bit compat offset (0x00800000) is much > >> smaller than native ARM's brk randomization value (0x02000000): > >> > >> unsigned long arch_randomize_brk(struct mm_struct *mm) > >> { > >> unsigned long range_end = mm->brk + 0x02000000; > >> return randomize_range(mm->brk, range_end, 0) ? : mm->brk; > >> } > >> > >> So, instead of basing arm64's brk randomization on mistaken STACK_RND_MASK > >> calculations, just use specific corrected values for compat (0x2000000) > >> and native arm64 (0x40000000). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> > > > > There seems to be a helper 'is_compat_task()' that does > > 'test_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT)' so could perhaps be used instead, but > > that's too nit-picky. This change makes things more consistent with > > Oh, good call. Yeah, none of the other .c code does direct tests for > the TIF_32BIT flag, so I'll use the helper and send a v2. Thanks!
I already applied it with that change and Tixy's reviewed-by. Thanks! Will