kernel-hardening - Re: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH 04/11] x86: Implement __arch_rare_write

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170410102244.GA13899@leverpostej>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:22:59 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@...il.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
	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 Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 08:20:03AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com> wrote:
> > The
> > submitted code is aimed at rare writes to globals, but this feature is
> > more than that and design decisions shouldn't be based on just the
> > short term.
> 
> Then, if you disagree with a proposed design, *explain why* in a
> standalone manner.  Say what future uses a different design would
> have.
> 
> > I actually care a lot more about 64-bit ARM support than I do x86, but
> > using a portable API for pax_open_kernel (for the simple uses at
> > least) is separate from choosing the underlying implementation. There
> > might not be a great way to do it on the architectures I care about
> > but that doesn't need to hinder x86. It's really not that much code...
> > A weaker/slower implementation for x86 also encourages the same
> > elsewhere.
> 
> No one has explained how CR0.WP is weaker or slower than my proposal.
> Here's what I'm proposing:
> 
> At boot, choose a random address A.  Create an mm_struct that has a
> single VMA starting at A that represents the kernel's rarely-written
> section.  Compute O = (A - VA of rarely-written section).  To do a
> rare write, use_mm() the mm, write to (VA + O), then unuse_mm().
> 
> This should work on any arch that has an MMU that allows this type of
> aliasing and that doesn't have PA-based protections on the
> rarely-written section.

Modulo randomization, that sounds exactly like what I had envisaged [1],
so that makes sense to me.

Thanks,
Mark.

[1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2016/11/18/3

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.