|
Message-ID: <45296d18-bbc3-c527-0060-b44cbff66d93@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:21:38 +0800 From: Li Kun <hw.likun@...wei.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> CC: "Wangkai (Morgan, Euler)" <morgan.wang@...wei.com>, <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [kernel hardening]Could we do something for KSPP? Hi 在 2017/6/23 0:51, Kees Cook 写道: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Li Kun <hw.likun@...wei.com> wrote: >> Hi Kees, >> >> My name is Li Kun, from a new formed Huawei kernel security team. > Hi! Thanks for the email. Feel free to email the > kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com list to make a similar > introduction. > >> My companion and me have been working on kernel and arm64 for sevral >> years,but don't have much experiences in kernel security yet. >> >> We have studied Pax&Grsecurity for few months , and have seen that there is >> much progress in KSPP recently. >> >> I'm wondering that if there is something we can do for KSPP? Maybe we can >> implement the "vmalloc kernel stack for arm64" or >> >> "fast refcount overflow protection for arm64" or if you have some >> suggestions ,please let me know. > I think either of these would be great. Mark Rutland mentioned in > private to me that AKASHI Takahiro had been working a bit on > VMAP_STACK for arm64, but that they had issues with catching > over/under-flows. Perhaps send an email to the public list with them > CCed asking on the status and how you can help? Thank you for the information :) I will send another email to discuss this and see what can i do. >> The vmapping itself is simple, and we don't need to do anything special >> there. IIRC Takahiro-san had done some tests with HAVE_ARCH_VMAP_STACK, >> and there weren't any obvious problems. > As for refcount overflow protection, the starting point is likely the > arm protection in the last public grsecurity patch, which is discussed > here: > https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4173#ARM > > For the refcount implementation, though, it'll likely need tweaking to > be a _refcount_ protection rather than a generalized atomic_t > protection, which is what grsecurity uses. Since upstream is splitting > out refcount_t from atomic_t, we can actually be a little bit tighter > in how the checks are performed. I noticed that you have send a patch set of fast refcount overflow protection as below. http://kernel-hardening.openwall.narkive.com/qTKqEF4F/patch-v5-0-3-implement-fast-refcount-overflow-protection I think it is nearing accomplishment if i haven't get it wrong. Maybe i can do the job on arm64 based on your latest patch set? Thank you very much! > > Please follow up on the public mailing list; the more people involved > the better. :) > > Thanks for reaching out! > > -Kees > -- Best Regards Li Kun
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.