[llvm] [BOLT][binary-analysis] Add initial pac-ret gadget scanner (PR #122304)

Anatoly Trosinenko via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jan 21 05:07:48 PST 2025


================
@@ -0,0 +1,918 @@
+// RUN: %clang %cflags -march=armv9.5-a+pauth-lr -mbranch-protection=pac-ret %s %p/../../Inputs/asm_main.c -o %t.exe
+// RUN: llvm-bolt-binary-analysis --scanners=pacret %t.exe 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+
+        .text
+
+        .globl  f1
+        .type   f1, at function
+f1:
+        paciasp
+        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
+        mov     x29, sp
+        bl      g
+        add     x0, x0, #3
+        ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16
+        // autiasp
+// CHECK-LABEL: GS-PACRET: non-protected ret found in function f1, basic block .LBB{{[0-9]+}}, at address
+// CHECK-NEXT:    The return instruction is     {{[0-9a-f]+}}:       ret
+// CHECK-NEXT:    The 1 instructions that write to the return register after any authentication are:
+// CHECK-NEXT:    1. {{[0-9a-f]+}}: ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #0x10
+// CHECK-NEXT:  This happens in the following basic block:
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   paciasp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-0x10]!
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   mov     x29, sp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   bl      g at PLT
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   add     x0, x0, #0x3
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #0x10
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   ret
+        ret
+        .size f1, .-f1
+
+
+        .globl  f_intermediate_overwrite1
+        .type   f_intermediate_overwrite1, at function
+f_intermediate_overwrite1:
+        paciasp
+        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
+        mov     x29, sp
+        bl      g
+        add     x0, x0, #3
+        autiasp
+        ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16
+// CHECK-LABEL: GS-PACRET: non-protected ret found in function f_intermediate_overwrite1, basic block .LBB
+// CHECK-NEXT:    The return instruction is     {{[0-9a-f]+}}:       ret
+// CHECK-NEXT:    The 1 instructions that write to the return register after any authentication are:
+// CHECK-NEXT:    1. {{[0-9a-f]+}}: ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #0x10
+// CHECK-NEXT:  This happens in the following basic block:
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   paciasp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-0x10]!
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   mov     x29, sp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   bl      g at PLT
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   add     x0, x0, #0x3
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   autiasp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #0x10
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   ret
+        ret
+        .size f_intermediate_overwrite1, .-f_intermediate_overwrite1
+
+        .globl  f_intermediate_overwrite2
+        .type   f_intermediate_overwrite2, at function
+f_intermediate_overwrite2:
+        paciasp
+        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
+        mov     x29, sp
+        bl      g
+        add     x0, x0, #3
+        ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16
+        autiasp
+        mov     x30, x0
+// CHECK-LABEL: GS-PACRET: non-protected ret found in function f_intermediate_overwrite2, basic block .LBB{{[0-9]+}}, at address
+// CHECK-NEXT:    The return instruction is     {{[0-9a-f]+}}:       ret
+// CHECK-NEXT:    The 1 instructions that write to the return register after any authentication are:
+// CHECK-NEXT:    1. {{[0-9a-f]+}}: mov     x30, x0
+// CHECK-NEXT:  This happens in the following basic block:
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   paciasp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-0x10]!
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   mov     x29, sp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   bl      g at PLT
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   add     x0, x0, #0x3
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #0x10
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   autiasp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   mov     x30, x0
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   ret
+        ret
+        .size f_intermediate_overwrite2, .-f_intermediate_overwrite2
+
+        .globl  f_intermediate_read
+        .type   f_intermediate_read, at function
+f_intermediate_read:
+        paciasp
+        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
+        mov     x29, sp
+        bl      g
+        add     x0, x0, #3
+        ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16
+        autiasp
+        mov     x0, x30
+// CHECK-NOT: function f_intermediate_read
+        ret
+        .size f_intermediate_read, .-f_intermediate_read
+
+        .globl  f_intermediate_overwrite3
+        .type   f_intermediate_overwrite3, at function
+f_intermediate_overwrite3:
+        paciasp
+        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
+        mov     x29, sp
+        bl      g
+        add     x0, x0, #3
+        ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16
+        autiasp
+        mov     w30, w0
+// CHECK-LABEL: GS-PACRET: non-protected ret found in function f_intermediate_overwrite3, basic block .LBB{{[0-9]+}}, at address
+// CHECK-NEXT:    The return instruction is     {{[0-9a-f]+}}:       ret
+// CHECK-NEXT:    The 1 instructions that write to the return register after any authentication are:
+// CHECK-NEXT:    1. {{[0-9a-f]+}}: mov     w30, w0
+// CHECK-NEXT:  This happens in the following basic block:
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   paciasp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-0x10]!
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   mov     x29, sp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   bl      g at PLT
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   add     x0, x0, #0x3
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #0x10
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   autiasp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   mov     w30, w0
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   ret
+        ret
+        .size f_intermediate_overwrite3, .-f_intermediate_overwrite3
+
+        .globl  f_nonx30_ret
+        .type   f_nonx30_ret, at function
+f_nonx30_ret:
+        paciasp
+        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
+        mov     x29, sp
+        bl      g
+        add     x0, x0, #3
+        ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16
+        mov     x16, x30
+        autiasp
+// CHECK-LABEL: GS-PACRET: non-protected ret found in function f_nonx30_ret, basic block .LBB{{[0-9]+}}, at address
+// CHECK-NEXT:    The return instruction is     {{[0-9a-f]+}}:       ret     x16
+// CHECK-NEXT:    The 1 instructions that write to the return register after any authentication are:
+// CHECK-NEXT:    1. {{[0-9a-f]+}}: mov     x16, x30
+// CHECK-NEXT:  This happens in the following basic block:
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   paciasp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-0x10]!
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   mov     x29, sp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   bl      g at PLT
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   add     x0, x0, #0x3
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #0x10
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   mov     x16, x30
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   autiasp
+// CHECK-NEXT: {{[0-9a-f]+}}:   ret     x16
+        ret     x16
+        .size f_nonx30_ret, .-f_nonx30_ret
+
+        .globl  f_nonx30_ret_ok
+        .type   f_nonx30_ret_ok, at function
+f_nonx30_ret_ok:
+        paciasp
+        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
+        mov     x29, sp
+        bl      g
+        add     x0, x0, #3
+        ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16
+        // FIXME: Should the scanner understand that an authenticated register (below x30,
+        //        after the autiasp instruction), is OK to be moved to another register
+        //        and then that register being used to return?
+        //        This respects that pac-ret hardening intent, but the scanner currently
+        //        will produce a false positive for this.
+        //        Is it worthwhile to make the scanner more complex for this case?
+        //        So far, scanning many millions of instructions across a linux distro,
+        //        I haven't encountered such an example.
+        //        The ".if 0" block below tests this case and currently fails.
+.if 0
+        autiasp
+        mov     x16, x30
+.else
+        mov     x16, x30
+        autia   x16, sp
+.endif
+// CHECK-NOT: function f_nonx30_ret_ok
+        ret     x16
+        .size f_nonx30_ret_ok, .-f_nonx30_ret_ok
+
----------------
atrosinenko wrote:

As far as I understand, the LR register is special as it should be implicitly considered authenticated on function entry for the purpose of pac-ret analysis, while other GPRs should not. The existing implementation, on the other hand, treats all registers the same way. I don't think it should block this PR, though I would add a FIXME like this:
```
        .globl  f_nonx30_ret_non_auted
        .type   f_nonx30_ret_non_auted, at function
f_nonx30_ret_non_auted:
// FIXME: This should be reported as x1 is not authenticated.
// CHECK-NOT: f_nonx30_ret_non_auted
        ret     x1
        .size f_nonx30_ret_non_auted, .-f_nonx30_ret_non_auted
```

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/122304


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list