[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58E7EF70.30766.621C4F44@pageexec.freemail.hu>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 21:58:40 +0200
From: "PaX Team" <pageexec@...email.hu>
To: Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@...il.com>,
Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH 04/11] x86: Implement __arch_rare_write_begin/unmap()
On 7 Apr 2017 at 9:14, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com> wrote:
> > On 7 April 2017 at 15:14, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Mathias Krause wrote:
> > Fair enough. However, placing a BUG_ON(!(read_cr0() & X86_CR0_WP))
> > somewhere sensible should make those "leaks" visible fast -- and their
> > exploitation impossible, i.e. fail hard.
>
> The leaks surely exist and now we'll just add an exploitable BUG.
can you please share those leaks that 'surely exist' and CC oss-security
while at it?
> I think we're approaching this all wrong, actually. The fact that x86
> has this CR0.WP thing is arguably a historical accident, and the fact
> that PaX uses it doesn't mean that PaX is doing it the best way for
> upstream Linux.
>
> Why don't we start at the other end and do a generic non-arch-specific
> implementation: set up an mm_struct that contains an RW alias of the
> relevant parts of rodata and use use_mm to access it. (That is,
> get_fs() to back up the old fs, set_fs(USER_DS),
> use_mm(&rare_write_mm), do the write using copy_to_user, undo
> everything.)
>
> Then someone who cares about performance can benchmark the CR0.WP
> approach against it and try to argue that it's a good idea. This
> benchmark should wait until I'm done with my PCID work, because PCID
> is going to make use_mm() a whole heck of a lot faster.
in my measurements switching PCID is hovers around 230 cycles for snb-ivb
and 200-220 for hsw-skl whereas cr0 writes are around 230-240 cycles. there's
of course a whole lot more impact for switching address spaces so it'll never
be fast enough to beat cr0.wp.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
