1======================
2Control Flow Integrity
3======================
4
5.. toctree::
6   :hidden:
7
8   ControlFlowIntegrityDesign
9
10.. contents::
11   :local:
12
13Introduction
14============
15
16Clang includes an implementation of a number of control flow integrity (CFI)
17schemes, which are designed to abort the program upon detecting certain forms
18of undefined behavior that can potentially allow attackers to subvert the
19program's control flow. These schemes have been optimized for performance,
20allowing developers to enable them in release builds.
21
22To enable Clang's available CFI schemes, use the flag ``-fsanitize=cfi``.
23You can also enable a subset of available :ref:`schemes <cfi-schemes>`.
24As currently implemented, all schemes rely on link-time optimization (LTO);
25so it is required to specify ``-flto``, and the linker used must support LTO,
26for example via the `gold plugin`_.
27
28To allow the checks to be implemented efficiently, the program must
29be structured such that certain object files are compiled with CFI
30enabled, and are statically linked into the program. This may preclude
31the use of shared libraries in some cases.
32
33The compiler will only produce CFI checks for a class if it can infer hidden
34LTO visibility for that class. LTO visibility is a property of a class that
35is inferred from flags and attributes. For more details, see the documentation
36for :doc:`LTO visibility <LTOVisibility>`.
37
38The ``-fsanitize=cfi-{vcall,nvcall,derived-cast,unrelated-cast}`` flags
39require that a ``-fvisibility=`` flag also be specified. This is because the
40default visibility setting is ``-fvisibility=default``, which would disable
41CFI checks for classes without visibility attributes. Most users will want
42to specify ``-fvisibility=hidden``, which enables CFI checks for such classes.
43
44Experimental support for :ref:`cross-DSO control flow integrity
45<cfi-cross-dso>` exists that does not require classes to have hidden LTO
46visibility. This cross-DSO support has unstable ABI at this time.
47
48.. _gold plugin: http://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html
49
50.. _cfi-schemes:
51
52Available schemes
53=================
54
55Available schemes are:
56
57  -  ``-fsanitize=cfi-cast-strict``: Enables :ref:`strict cast checks
58     <cfi-strictness>`.
59  -  ``-fsanitize=cfi-derived-cast``: Base-to-derived cast to the wrong
60     dynamic type.
61  -  ``-fsanitize=cfi-unrelated-cast``: Cast from ``void*`` or another
62     unrelated type to the wrong dynamic type.
63  -  ``-fsanitize=cfi-nvcall``: Non-virtual call via an object whose vptr is of
64     the wrong dynamic type.
65  -  ``-fsanitize=cfi-vcall``: Virtual call via an object whose vptr is of the
66     wrong dynamic type.
67  -  ``-fsanitize=cfi-icall``: Indirect call of a function with wrong dynamic
68     type.
69
70You can use ``-fsanitize=cfi`` to enable all the schemes and use
71``-fno-sanitize`` flag to narrow down the set of schemes as desired.
72For example, you can build your program with
73``-fsanitize=cfi -fno-sanitize=cfi-nvcall,cfi-icall``
74to use all schemes except for non-virtual member function call and indirect call
75checking.
76
77Remember that you have to provide ``-flto`` if at least one CFI scheme is
78enabled.
79
80Trapping and Diagnostics
81========================
82
83By default, CFI will abort the program immediately upon detecting a control
84flow integrity violation. You can use the :ref:`-fno-sanitize-trap=
85<controlling-code-generation>` flag to cause CFI to print a diagnostic
86similar to the one below before the program aborts.
87
88.. code-block:: console
89
90    bad-cast.cpp:109:7: runtime error: control flow integrity check for type 'B' failed during base-to-derived cast (vtable address 0x000000425a50)
91    0x000000425a50: note: vtable is of type 'A'
92     00 00 00 00  f0 f1 41 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  20 5a 42 00
93                  ^
94
95If diagnostics are enabled, you can also configure CFI to continue program
96execution instead of aborting by using the :ref:`-fsanitize-recover=
97<controlling-code-generation>` flag.
98
99Forward-Edge CFI for Virtual Calls
100==================================
101
102This scheme checks that virtual calls take place using a vptr of the correct
103dynamic type; that is, the dynamic type of the called object must be a
104derived class of the static type of the object used to make the call.
105This CFI scheme can be enabled on its own using ``-fsanitize=cfi-vcall``.
106
107For this scheme to work, all translation units containing the definition
108of a virtual member function (whether inline or not), other than members
109of :ref:`blacklisted <cfi-blacklist>` types or types with public :doc:`LTO
110visibility <LTOVisibility>`, must be compiled with ``-flto`` or ``-flto=thin``
111enabled and be statically linked into the program.
112
113Performance
114-----------
115
116A performance overhead of less than 1% has been measured by running the
117Dromaeo benchmark suite against an instrumented version of the Chromium
118web browser. Another good performance benchmark for this mechanism is the
119virtual-call-heavy SPEC 2006 xalancbmk.
120
121Note that this scheme has not yet been optimized for binary size; an increase
122of up to 15% has been observed for Chromium.
123
124Bad Cast Checking
125=================
126
127This scheme checks that pointer casts are made to an object of the correct
128dynamic type; that is, the dynamic type of the object must be a derived class
129of the pointee type of the cast. The checks are currently only introduced
130where the class being casted to is a polymorphic class.
131
132Bad casts are not in themselves control flow integrity violations, but they
133can also create security vulnerabilities, and the implementation uses many
134of the same mechanisms.
135
136There are two types of bad cast that may be forbidden: bad casts
137from a base class to a derived class (which can be checked with
138``-fsanitize=cfi-derived-cast``), and bad casts from a pointer of
139type ``void*`` or another unrelated type (which can be checked with
140``-fsanitize=cfi-unrelated-cast``).
141
142The difference between these two types of casts is that the first is defined
143by the C++ standard to produce an undefined value, while the second is not
144in itself undefined behavior (it is well defined to cast the pointer back
145to its original type) unless the object is uninitialized and the cast is a
146``static_cast`` (see C++14 [basic.life]p5).
147
148If a program as a matter of policy forbids the second type of cast, that
149restriction can normally be enforced. However it may in some cases be necessary
150for a function to perform a forbidden cast to conform with an external API
151(e.g. the ``allocate`` member function of a standard library allocator). Such
152functions may be :ref:`blacklisted <cfi-blacklist>`.
153
154For this scheme to work, all translation units containing the definition
155of a virtual member function (whether inline or not), other than members
156of :ref:`blacklisted <cfi-blacklist>` types or types with public :doc:`LTO
157visibility <LTOVisibility>`, must be compiled with ``-flto`` or ``-flto=thin``
158enabled and be statically linked into the program.
159
160Non-Virtual Member Function Call Checking
161=========================================
162
163This scheme checks that non-virtual calls take place using an object of
164the correct dynamic type; that is, the dynamic type of the called object
165must be a derived class of the static type of the object used to make the
166call. The checks are currently only introduced where the object is of a
167polymorphic class type.  This CFI scheme can be enabled on its own using
168``-fsanitize=cfi-nvcall``.
169
170For this scheme to work, all translation units containing the definition
171of a virtual member function (whether inline or not), other than members
172of :ref:`blacklisted <cfi-blacklist>` types or types with public :doc:`LTO
173visibility <LTOVisibility>`, must be compiled with ``-flto`` or ``-flto=thin``
174enabled and be statically linked into the program.
175
176.. _cfi-strictness:
177
178Strictness
179----------
180
181If a class has a single non-virtual base and does not introduce or override
182virtual member functions or fields other than an implicitly defined virtual
183destructor, it will have the same layout and virtual function semantics as
184its base. By default, casts to such classes are checked as if they were made
185to the least derived such class.
186
187Casting an instance of a base class to such a derived class is technically
188undefined behavior, but it is a relatively common hack for introducing
189member functions on class instances with specific properties that works under
190most compilers and should not have security implications, so we allow it by
191default. It can be disabled with ``-fsanitize=cfi-cast-strict``.
192
193Indirect Function Call Checking
194===============================
195
196This scheme checks that function calls take place using a function of the
197correct dynamic type; that is, the dynamic type of the function must match
198the static type used at the call. This CFI scheme can be enabled on its own
199using ``-fsanitize=cfi-icall``.
200
201For this scheme to work, each indirect function call in the program, other
202than calls in :ref:`blacklisted <cfi-blacklist>` functions, must call a
203function which was either compiled with ``-fsanitize=cfi-icall`` enabled,
204or whose address was taken by a function in a translation unit compiled with
205``-fsanitize=cfi-icall``.
206
207If a function in a translation unit compiled with ``-fsanitize=cfi-icall``
208takes the address of a function not compiled with ``-fsanitize=cfi-icall``,
209that address may differ from the address taken by a function in a translation
210unit not compiled with ``-fsanitize=cfi-icall``. This is technically a
211violation of the C and C++ standards, but it should not affect most programs.
212
213Each translation unit compiled with ``-fsanitize=cfi-icall`` must be
214statically linked into the program or shared library, and calls across
215shared library boundaries are handled as if the callee was not compiled with
216``-fsanitize=cfi-icall``.
217
218This scheme is currently only supported on the x86 and x86_64 architectures.
219
220``-fsanitize-cfi-icall-generalize-pointers``
221--------------------------------------------
222
223Mismatched pointer types are a common cause of cfi-icall check failures.
224Translation units compiled with the ``-fsanitize-cfi-icall-generalize-pointers``
225flag relax pointer type checking for call sites in that translation unit,
226applied across all functions compiled with ``-fsanitize=cfi-icall``.
227
228Specifically, pointers in return and argument types are treated as equivalent as
229long as the qualifiers for the type they point to match. For example, ``char*``,
230``char**``, and ``int*`` are considered equivalent types. However, ``char*`` and
231``const char*`` are considered separate types.
232
233``-fsanitize-cfi-icall-generalize-pointers`` is not compatible with
234``-fsanitize-cfi-cross-dso``.
235
236
237``-fsanitize=cfi-icall`` and ``-fsanitize=function``
238----------------------------------------------------
239
240This tool is similar to ``-fsanitize=function`` in that both tools check
241the types of function calls. However, the two tools occupy different points
242on the design space; ``-fsanitize=function`` is a developer tool designed
243to find bugs in local development builds, whereas ``-fsanitize=cfi-icall``
244is a security hardening mechanism designed to be deployed in release builds.
245
246``-fsanitize=function`` has a higher space and time overhead due to a more
247complex type check at indirect call sites, as well as a need for run-time
248type information (RTTI), which may make it unsuitable for deployment. Because
249of the need for RTTI, ``-fsanitize=function`` can only be used with C++
250programs, whereas ``-fsanitize=cfi-icall`` can protect both C and C++ programs.
251
252On the other hand, ``-fsanitize=function`` conforms more closely with the C++
253standard and user expectations around interaction with shared libraries;
254the identity of function pointers is maintained, and calls across shared
255library boundaries are no different from calls within a single program or
256shared library.
257
258.. _cfi-blacklist:
259
260Blacklist
261=========
262
263A :doc:`SanitizerSpecialCaseList` can be used to relax CFI checks for certain
264source files, functions and types using the ``src``, ``fun`` and ``type``
265entity types. Specific CFI modes can be be specified using ``[section]``
266headers.
267
268.. code-block:: bash
269
270    # Suppress all CFI checking for code in a file.
271    src:bad_file.cpp
272    src:bad_header.h
273    # Ignore all functions with names containing MyFooBar.
274    fun:*MyFooBar*
275    # Ignore all types in the standard library.
276    type:std::*
277    # Disable only unrelated cast checks for this function
278    [cfi-unrelated-cast]
279    fun:*UnrelatedCast*
280    # Disable CFI call checks for this function without affecting cast checks
281    [cfi-vcall|cfi-nvcall|cfi-icall]
282    fun:*BadCall*
283
284
285.. _cfi-cross-dso:
286
287Shared library support
288======================
289
290Use **-f[no-]sanitize-cfi-cross-dso** to enable the cross-DSO control
291flow integrity mode, which allows all CFI schemes listed above to
292apply across DSO boundaries. As in the regular CFI, each DSO must be
293built with ``-flto``.
294
295Normally, CFI checks will only be performed for classes that have hidden LTO
296visibility. With this flag enabled, the compiler will emit cross-DSO CFI
297checks for all classes, except for those which appear in the CFI blacklist
298or which use a ``no_sanitize`` attribute.
299
300Design
301======
302
303Please refer to the :doc:`design document<ControlFlowIntegrityDesign>`.
304
305Publications
306============
307
308`Control-Flow Integrity: Principles, Implementations, and Applications <http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/64250/ccs05.pdf>`_.
309Martin Abadi, Mihai Budiu, Úlfar Erlingsson, Jay Ligatti.
310
311`Enforcing Forward-Edge Control-Flow Integrity in GCC & LLVM <http://www.pcc.me.uk/~peter/acad/usenix14.pdf>`_.
312Caroline Tice, Tom Roeder, Peter Collingbourne, Stephen Checkoway,
313Úlfar Erlingsson, Luis Lozano, Geoff Pike.
314