<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:47 PM Victor Rodriguez <<a href="mailto:vm.rod25@gmail.com">vm.rod25@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi StarlingX community<br>
<br>
We can all agree that security is an important feature to be taken<br>
into consideration in any SW project. In the aim of improving the<br>
security of the StarlingX project, we have been taking the task to<br>
propose the use of some compiler flags that prevent and detect some<br>
security holes, especially by buffer overflow that could lead into ROP<br>
attacks.<br>
<br>
The list of flags that we are proposing are :<br>
<br>
Stack-based Buffer Overrun Detection: CFLAGS=”-fstack-protector-strong”<br>
<br>
Fortify source: CFLAGS="-O2 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2"<br>
Format string vulnerabilities: CFLAGS="-Wformat -Wformat-security"<br>
Stack execution protection: LDFLAGS="-z noexecstack"<br>
Data relocation and protection (RELRO): LDLFAGS="-z relro -z now"<br>
<br>
<br>
These are being analyzed in the following Gerrit reviews (thanks a lot<br>
for all the good feedback)<br>
<br>
<a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/623608/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/623608/</a><br>
<a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/623603/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/623603/</a><br>
<a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/623601/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/623601/</a><br>
<a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/623599/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/623599/</a><br>
<br>
As requested in the Gerrit reviews, there is a proper need to first<br>
understand what these compiler flags do and what is the impact they<br>
have at the functional and performance area of the project. This is a<br>
preliminary report, we will be following up with a test plan for<br>
functional & performance test plans for the services as a next step.<br>
This report includes:<br>
<br>
* Detailed description of what the compiler flag does<br>
* Code example that shows how does it work to prevent attacks<br>
* If there is a change in the binary, we create a microbenchmark that<br>
shows us how the flag impact the performance<br>
<br>
<a href="https://github.com/VictorRodriguez/hobbies/tree/master/c_programing_exercises/cflags_security" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/VictorRodriguez/hobbies/tree/master/c_programing_exercises/cflags_security</a><br>
<br>
As a result of the microbenchmark, the performance impact is not<br>
relevant ( less than 1% ) using an Ubuntu x86 system ( GCC 5 ) (more<br>
details on the HW and SW specification upon requests)<br>
<br>
The areas of the code we are suggesting on the patches are:<br>
<br>
* stx-ha<br>
* stx-metal<br>
* stx-nfv<br>
* stx-fault<br>
<br>
We do take care that these flags are not breaking the following areas<br>
after being applied.<br>
<br>
* Build process of the image<br>
* Sanity test cases after the image is created<br>
(Ada can give more details on the sanity report of the image generated<br>
with these flags)<br>
<br>
If running the sanity tests are not enough to prove that a change in<br>
compiler flags do not affect functionality, please gave us the right<br>
path to follow.<br>
<br>
As mentioned before, this is a preliminary report, and that we will be<br>
following up with a test plan for functional & performance test plans<br>
for the services as a next step.<br>
<br>
Hope this email helps to clarify some questions related to the flags<br>
and start the follow-up discussion.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the context Victor, it's very helpful to me.<br></div><div><br></div><div>One thing I want to mention is something the Kata Containers team was talking about at the Berlin OpenStack summit, which is when many small performance hits start to add up. They have to be careful to ensure they don't have a bunch of smallish looking changes that add up to a large performance hit over a longer period of time.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Overall I'm sure the StarlingX project would like to have some performance testing, if we don't already, though that can be challenging for an open source project. I had mentioned OPNFV's Functest and related projects on the TSC call, but now seeing which components are affected I'm not sure that would be directly helpful. I look forward to further discussions around this area.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Curtis<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Victor Rodriguez<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Starlingx-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io" target="_blank">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Blog: <a href="http://serverascode.com" target="_blank">serverascode.com</a></div></div>