[llvm-dev] [RFC] Pagerando: Page-granularity code randomization

[Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev]

If the linker normally doesn't reorder sections with -ffunction-sections
but you introduce a random order, then I'd guess you have taken adjacent
functions that may have been originally from the same source and so 
(perhaps) more tightly coupled, and scattered them randomly.  This could 
take what was reasonably adjacent L2/L3 cache behavior and introduced a
bunch of non-locality as the calls start bouncing around memory more
widely.  Going from reasonable to unreasonable cache behavior can have a 
pretty serious effect.
All speculation of course, and highly dependent on the application.
--paulr

> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Crane via llvm-dev
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:42 PM
> To: Sean Silva
> Cc: llvm-dev
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Pagerando: Page-granularity code
> randomization
> 
> I could understand a TLB hit if functions that originally happened to
> be on the same page were spread across many pages, raising the iTLB
> footprint for a given loop, etc. (reduced spatial locality). For
> pagerando, since we're splitting on 4k page boundaries and can keep
> spatial locality (or attempt to improve it), I'm not sure that TLB
> misses will be a large factor. I expect that the runtime overhead of
> inter-page indirection will dominate any TLB impact.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Michael Spencer via llvm-dev
> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Stephen Crane <sjc at immunant.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't have performance measurements for the new LTO version of
> >>> pagerando yet. I'll definitely be thoroughly measuring performance
> >>> once the current prototype is finished before moving forward, and will
> >>> post results when I have them.
> >>>
> >>> I'm definitely curious about your work and its performance impact.
> >>> Were you randomizing the layout of functions during linking by
> >>> reordering function sections? Or did just enabling -ffunction-sections
> >>> tank performance?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Stephen
> >>
> >>
> >> -ffunction-sections plus randomization of text section order in the
> linker
> >> was a huge performance hit. It may well be different with only
> randomizing
> >> 4k groupings of sections instead.
> >
> >
> > What overhead would there be from randomizing layout other than iTLB
> cost?
> > And by definition if you are remapping at 4k boundaries then that has no
> > effect on iTLB cost (besides the initial need to split at 4k
> boundaries).
> >
> > -- Sean Silva
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> - Michael Spencer
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Davide Italiano
> <davide at freebsd.org>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Stephen Crane via llvm-dev
> >>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>> >>> This RFC describes pagerando, an improvement upon ASLR for shared
> >>> >>> libraries. We're planning to submit this work for upstreaming and
> >>> >>> would appreciate feedback before we get to the patch submission
> >>> >>> stage.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Pagerando randomizes the location of individual memory pages (ASLR
> >>> >>> only randomizes the library base address). This increases security
> >>> >>> against code-reuse attacks (such as ROP) by tolerating pointer
> leaks.
> >>> >>> Pagerando splits libraries into page-aligned bins at compile time.
> At
> >>> >>> load time, each bin is mapped to a random address. The code in
> each
> >>> >>> bin is immutable and thus shared between processes.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> To implement pagerando, the compiler and linker need to build
> shared
> >>> >>> libraries with text segments split into page-aligned (and ideally
> >>> >>> page-sized) bins. All inter-bin references are indirected through
> a
> >>> >>> table initialized by the dynamic loader that holds the absolute
> >>> >>> address of each bin. At load time the loader randomly chooses an
> >>> >>> address for each bin and maps the bin pages from disk into memory.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> We're focusing on ARM and AArch64 initially, although there is
> >>> >>> nothing
> >>> >>> particularly target specific that precludes support for other LLVM
> >>> >>> backends.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> ## Design Goals
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> 1. Improve security over ASLR. The randomization granularity
> >>> >>> determines how much information a single code pointer leaks. A
> >>> >>> pointer
> >>> >>> to a page reveals less about the location of other code than a
> >>> >>> pointer
> >>> >>> into a contiguous library would.
> >>> >>> 2. Avoid randomizing files on disk. Modern operating systems
> provide
> >>> >>> verified boot techniques to detect tampering with files.
> Randomizing
> >>> >>> the on-disk layout of system libraries would interfere with the
> >>> >>> trusted boot process. Randomizing libraries at compile or link
> time
> >>> >>> would also needlessly complicate deployment and provisioning.
> >>> >>> 3. Preserve code page sharing. The OS reduces memory usage by
> mapping
> >>> >>> shared file pages to the same physical memory in each process and
> >>> >>> locates these pages at different virtual addresses with ASLR. To
> >>> >>> preserve sharing of code pages, we cannot modify the contents of
> >>> >>> file-mapped pages at load time and are restricted to changing
> their
> >>> >>> ordering and placement in the virtual address space.
> >>> >>> 4. Backwards compatibility. Randomized code must interoperate
> >>> >>> transparently with existing, unmodified executables and shared
> >>> >>> libraries. Calls into randomized code must work as-is according to
> >>> >>> the
> >>> >>> normal ABI.
> >>> >>> 5. Compatibility with other mitigations. Enabling randomization
> must
> >>> >>> not preclude deploying other mitigations such as control-flow
> >>> >>> integrity as well.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> ## Pagerando Design
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Pagerando requires a platform-specific extension to the dynamic
> >>> >>> loading ABI for compatible libraries to opt-in to. In order to
> >>> >>> decouple the address of each code bin (segment) from that of other
> >>> >>> bins and global data, we must disallow relative addressing between
> >>> >>> different bin segments as well as between legacy segments and bin
> >>> >>> segments.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> To prepare a library for pagerando, the compiler must first
> allocate
> >>> >>> functions into page-aligned bins corresponding to segments in the
> >>> >>> final ELF file. Since these bins will be independently positioned,
> >>> >>> the
> >>> >>> compiler must redirect all inter-bin references through an
> >>> >>> indirection
> >>> >>> table – the Page Offset Table (POT) – which stores the virtual
> >>> >>> address
> >>> >>> of each bin in the library. Indices of POT entries and bin offsets
> >>> >>> are
> >>> >>> statically determined at link time so code will not require any
> >>> >>> dynamic relocations to reference functions in another bin or
> globals
> >>> >>> outside of bins. We reserve a register in pagerando-compatible
> code
> >>> >>> to
> >>> >>> hold the address of the POT. This register is initialized on entry
> to
> >>> >>> the shared library. At load time the dynamic loader maps code bins
> at
> >>> >>> independent, random addresses and updates the dynamic relocations
> in
> >>> >>> the POT.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Reserving a register to hold the POT address changes the internal
> ABI
> >>> >>> calling convention and requires that the POT register be correctly
> >>> >>> initialized when entering a library from external code. To
> initialize
> >>> >>> the register, the compiler emits entry wrappers which save the old
> >>> >>> contents of the POT register if necessary, initialize the POT
> >>> >>> register, and call the target function. Each externally visible
> >>> >>> function (conservatively including all address taken functions)
> needs
> >>> >>> an entry wrapper which replaces the function for all external
> uses.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> To optimally pack functions into bins and avoid new static
> >>> >>> relocations, we propose using (traditional) LTO. With new static
> >>> >>> relocations (i.e. linker cooperation), LTO would not be necessary,
> >>> >>> but
> >>> >>> it is still desirable for more efficient bin packing.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> The design of pagerando is based on the mitigations proposed by
> >>> >>> Backes
> >>> >>> and Nürnberger [1], with improvements for compatibility and
> >>> >>> deployability. The present design is a refinement of our first
> >>> >>> pagerando prototype [2].
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> ## LLVM Changes
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> To implement pagerando, we propose the following LLVM changes:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> New module pass to create entry wrapper functions. This pass will
> >>> >>> create entry wrappers as described above and replace exported
> >>> >>> function
> >>> >>> names and all address taken uses with the wrapper. This pass will
> >>> >>> only
> >>> >>> be run when pagerando is enabled.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Instruction Lowering. Pagerando-compatible code must access all
> >>> >>> global
> >>> >>> values (including functions) through the POT since PC-relative
> memory
> >>> >>> addressing is not allowed between a bin and another segment. We
> >>> >>> propose that when pagerando is enabled, all global variable
> accesses
> >>> >>> from functions marked as pagerando-compatible must be lowered into
> >>> >>> GOT-relative accesses and added to the GOT address loaded from the
> >>> >>> POT
> >>> >>> (currently stored in the first POT entry). Lowering of direct
> >>> >>> function
> >>> >>> calls targeting pagerando-compatible code is slightly more
> >>> >>> complicated
> >>> >>> because we need to determine the POT index of the bin containing
> the
> >>> >>> target function if the target is not in the same bin. However, we
> >>> >>> can't properly allocate functions to bins before they are lowered
> and
> >>> >>> an approximate size is available. Therefore, during lowering we
> >>> >>> should
> >>> >>> assume that all function calls must be made indirectly through the
> >>> >>> POT
> >>> >>> with the computation of the POT index and bin offset of the target
> >>> >>> function postponed until assembly printing.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> New machine module LTO pass to allocate functions into bins. This
> >>> >>> pass
> >>> >>> relies on targets implementing TargetInstrInfo::getInstSizeInBytes
> >>> >>> (MachineInstr) so that it knows (approximately) how large the
> final
> >>> >>> function code will be. Functions can also be packed in such a way
> >>> >>> that
> >>> >>> the number of inter-bin calls are minimized by taking the function
> >>> >>> call graph and/or execution profiles into account while packing.
> This
> >>> >>> pass only needs to run when pagerando is enabled.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Code Emission. After functions are assigned to bins, we create an
> >>> >>> individual MCSection for each bin. These MCSections will map to
> >>> >>> independent segments during linking. The AsmPrinter is responsible
> >>> >>> for
> >>> >>> emitting the POT entries during code emission. We cannot easily
> >>> >>> represent the POT as a standard IR object because it needs to
> contain
> >>> >>> bin (MCSection) addresses. The AsmPrinter instead can query the
> >>> >>> MCContext for the list of bin symbols and emit these symbols
> directly
> >>> >>> into a global POT array.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Gold Plugin Interface. If using LTO to build the module, LLVM can
> >>> >>> generate the complete POT for the module and instrument all
> >>> >>> references
> >>> >>> that need to use the POT. However, we must still ensure that bin
> >>> >>> sections are each placed into an independent segment so that the
> >>> >>> dynamic loader can map each bin separately. The gold plugin
> interface
> >>> >>> currently provides support to assign sections to unique output
> >>> >>> segments. However, it does not yet provide plugins an opportunity
> to
> >>> >>> call this interface for new, plugin-created input files. Gold
> >>> >>> requires
> >>> >>> that the plugin provide the file handle of the input section to
> >>> >>> assign
> >>> >>> a section to a unique segment. We will need to upstream a small
> patch
> >>> >>> for gold that provides a new callback to the LTO plugin when gold
> >>> >>> receives a new, plugin-generated input file. This would allow the
> >>> >>> plugin to obtain the new file’s handle and map its sections to
> unique
> >>> >>> segments. The linker must mark pagerando bin segments in such a
> way
> >>> >>> that the dynamic loader knows that it can randomize each bin
> segment
> >>> >>> independently. We propose a new ELF segment flag PF_RAND_ADDR that
> >>> >>> can
> >>> >>> communicate this for each compatible segment. The compiler and/or
> >>> >>> linker must add this flag to compatible segments for the loader to
> >>> >>> recognize and randomize the relevant segments.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> ## Target-Specific Details
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> We will initially support pagerando for ARM and AArch64, so
> several
> >>> >>> details are worth considering on those targets. For ARM/AArch64,
> the
> >>> >>> r9 register is a platform-specific register that can be used as
> the
> >>> >>> static base register, which is similar in many ways to pagerando.
> >>> >>> When
> >>> >>> not specified by the platform, r9 is a callee-saved general-
> purpose
> >>> >>> register. Thus, using r9 as the POT register will be backwards
> >>> >>> compatible when calling out of pagerando code into either legacy
> code
> >>> >>> or a different module; the callee will preserve r9 for use after
> >>> >>> returning to pagerando code. In AArch64, r18 is designated as a
> >>> >>> platform-specific register, however, it is not specified as
> >>> >>> callee-saved when not reserved by the target platform. Thus, to
> >>> >>> interoperate with unmodified legacy AArch64 software, we would
> need
> >>> >>> to
> >>> >>> save r18 in pagerando code before calling into any external code.
> >>> >>> When
> >>> >>> using LTO, the compiler will see the entire module and therefore
> be
> >>> >>> able to identify calls into external vs internal code. Without
> LTO,
> >>> >>> it
> >>> >>> will likely be more efficient to use a callee-saved register to
> avoid
> >>> >>> the need to save the POT register before each call. We will
> >>> >>> experiment
> >>> >>> with both caller- and callee-saved registers to determine which is
> >>> >>> most efficient.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> [1] M. Backes and S. Nürnberger. Oxymoron - making fine-grained
> >>> >>> memory
> >>> >>> randomization practical by allowing code sharing. In USENIX
> Security
> >>> >>> Symposium, 2014. https://www.usenix.org/node/184466
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> [2] S. Crane, A. Homescu, and P. Larsen. Code randomization:
> Haven’t
> >>> >>> we solved this problem yet? In IEEE Cybersecurity Development
> >>> >>> Conference (SecDev), 2016.
> >>> >>> http://www.ics.uci.edu/~perl/sd16_pagerando.pdf
> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >>> >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Out of curiosity, Did you measure what's the impact on performances
> >>> >> of the generated executable? We tried something akin to your
> proposal
> >>> >> in the past (i.e. randomizing ELF sections layout) and it turned
> out
> >>> >> to be a
> >>> >> sledgehammer for performances (in some cases, i.e. when
> >>> >> -ffunction-sections/-fdata-sections was specified the performances
> of
> >>> >> the runtime executable dropped by > 10% [cc:ing Michael as he did
> the
> >>> >> measurements]).
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > To clarify, I read your paper and I see some benchmarks see
> >>> > substantial degradations (6.5%), but in your "future work" section
> you
> >>> > describe techniques to mitigate the drop, and I wonder if you ever
> got
> >>> > to implement them and got new measurements.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Davide
> >>> >
> >>> > "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more
> >>> > or less solved" -- Henri Poincare
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev