Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (5194)

• Heroic Defender of the Stack

  27 janvier 2011, par Multimedia Mike — Programming

  Problem Statement

  I have been investigating stack smashing and countermeasures (stack smashing prevention, or SSP). Briefly, stack smashing occurs when a function allocates a static array on the stack and writes past the end of it, onto other local variables and eventually onto other function stack frames. When it comes time to return from the function, the return address has been corrupted and the program ends up some place it really shouldn’t. In the best case, the program just crashes ; in the worst case, a malicious party crafts code to exploit this malfunction.

  Further, debugging such a problem is especially obnoxious because by the time the program has crashed, it has already trashed any record (on the stack) of how it got into the errant state.

  Preventative Countermeasure

  GCC has had SSP since version 4.1. The computer inserts SSP as additional code when the -fstack-protector command line switch is specified. Implementation-wise, SSP basically inserts a special value (the literature refers to this as the ’canary’ as in "canary in the coalmine") at the top of the stack frame when entering the function, and code before leaving the function to make sure the canary didn’t get stepped on. If something happens to the canary, the program is immediately aborted with a message to stderr about what happened. Further, gcc’s man page on my Ubuntu machine proudly trumpets that this functionality is enabled per default ever since Ubuntu 6.10.

  And that’s really all there is to it. Your code is safe from stack smashing by default. Or so the hand-wavy documentation would have you believe.

  Not exactly

  Exercising the SSP

  I wanted to see the SSP in action to make sure it was a real thing. So I wrote some code that smashes the stack in pretty brazen ways so that I could reasonably expect to trigger the SSP (see later in this post for the code). Here’s what I learned that wasn’t in any documentation :

  SSP is only emitted for functions that have static arrays of 8-bit data (i.e., [unsigned] chars). If you have static arrays of other data types (like, say, 32-bit ints), those are still fair game for stack smashing.

  Evaluating the security vs. speed/code size trade-offs, it makes sense that the compiler wouldn’t apply this protection everywhere (I can only muse about how my optimization-obsessive multimedia hacking colleagues would absolute freak out if this code were unilaterally added to all functions). So why are only static char arrays deemed to be "vulnerable objects" (the wording that the gcc man page uses) ? A security hacking colleague suggested that this is probably due to the fact that the kind of data which poses the highest risk is arrays of 8-bit input data from, e.g., network sources.

  The gcc man page also lists an option -fstack-protector-all that is supposed to protect all functions. The man page’s definition of "all functions" perhaps differs from my own since invoking the option does not have differ in result from plain, vanilla -fstack-protector.

  The Valgrind Connection

  "Memory trouble ? Run Valgrind !" That may as well be Valgrind’s marketing slogan. Indeed, it’s the go-to utility for finding troublesome memory-related problems and has saved me on a number of occasions. However, it must be noted that it is useless for debugging this type of problem. If you understand how Valgrind works, this makes perfect sense. Valgrind operates by watching all memory accesses and ensuring that the program is only accessing memory to which it has privileges. In the stack smashing scenario, the program is fully allowed to write to that stack space ; after all, the program recently, legitimately pushed that return value onto the stack when calling the errant, stack smashing function.

  Valgrind embodies a suite of tools. My idea for an addition to this suite would be a mechanism which tracks return values every time a call instruction is encountered. The tool could track the return values in a separate stack data structure, though this might have some thorny consequences for some more unusual program flows. Instead, it might track them in some kind of hash/dictionary data structure and warn the programmer whenever a ’ret’ instruction is returning to an address that isn’t in the dictionary.

  Simple Stack Smashing Code

  Here’s the code I wrote to test exactly how SSP gets invoked in gcc. Compile with ’gcc -g -O0 -Wall -fstack-protector-all -Wstack-protector stack-fun.c -o stack-fun’.

  stack-fun.c :

  PLAIN TEXT

  C :

  1. /* keep outside of the stack frame */
  2. static int i ;
  3.  
  4. void stack_smasher32(void)
  5. {
  6.  int buffer32[8] ;
  7.  // uncomment this array and compile without optimizations
  8.  // in order to force this function to compile with SSP
  9. // char buffer_to_trigger_ssp[8] ;
  10.  
  11.  for (i = 0 ; i <50 ; i++)
  12.   buffer32[i] = 0xA5 ;
  13. }
  14.  
  15. void stack_smasher8(void)
  16. {
  17.  char buffer8[8] ;
  18.  for (i = 0 ; i <50 ; i++)
  19.   buffer8[i] = 0xA5 ;
  20. }
  21.  
  22. int main()
  23. {
  24. // stack_smasher8() ;
  25.  stack_smasher32() ;
  26.  return 0 ;
  27. }

  The above incarnation should just produce the traditional "Segmentation fault". However, uncommenting and executing stack_smasher8() in favor of stack_smasher32() should result in "*** stack smashing detected *** : ./stack-fun terminated", followed by the venerable "Segmentation fault".

  As indicated in the comments for stack_smasher32(), it’s possible to trick the compiler into emitting SSP for a function by inserting an array of at least 8 bytes (any less and SSP won’t emit, as documented, unless gcc’s ssp-buffer-size parameter is tweaked). This has to be compiled with no optimization at all (-O0) or else the compiler will (quite justifiably) optimize away the unused buffer and omit SSP.

  For reference, I ran my tests on Ubuntu 10.04.1 with gcc 4.4.3 compiling the code for both x86_32 and x86_64.

• Revision 39907 : Cache de SPIP par memoization ; configuration permettant de choisir sa ...

  18 août 2010, par fil@… — Log

  Cache de SPIP par memoization ; configuration permettant de choisir sa fonction de memoization, et de passer par le cache standard de spip

• 2 GB Should Be Enough For Me

  31 août 2010, par Multimedia Mike — General

  My new EeePC 1201PN netbook has 2 GB of RAM. Call me shortsighted but I feel like “that ought to be enough for me”. I’m not trying to claim that it ought to be enough for everyone. I am, however, questioning the utility of swap space for those skilled in the art of computing.

  
  
  Technology marches on : This ancient 128 MB RAM module is larger than my digital camera’s battery charger… and I just realized that comparison doesn’t make any sense
  

  Does anyone else have this issue ? It has gotten to the point where I deliberately disable swap partitions on Linux desktops I’m using ('swapoff -a'), and try not to allocate a swap partition during install time. I’m encountering Linux installers that seem to be making it tougher to do this, essentially pleading with you to create a swap partition– “Seriously, you might need 8 total gigabytes of virtual memory one day.” I’m of the opinion that if 2 GB of physical memory isn’t enough for my normal operation, I might need to re-examine my processes.

  In the course of my normal computer usage (which is definitely not normal by the standard of a normal computer user), swap space is just another way for the software to screw things up behind the scenes. In this case, the mistake is performance-related as the software makes poor decisions about what needs to be kept in RAM.

  And then there are the netbook-oriented Linux distributions that insisted upon setting aside as swap 1/2 gigabyte of the already constrained 4 gigabytes of my Eee PC 701′s on-board flash memory, never offering the choice to opt out of swap space during installation. Earmarking flash memory for swap space is generally regarded as exceptionally poor form. To be fair, I don’t know that SSD has been all that prevalent in netbooks since the very earliest units in the netbook epoch.

  Am I alone in this ? Does anyone else prefer to keep all of their memory physical in this day and age ?