kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Add support for eXclusive Page Frame Ownership

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

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

Message-ID: <60c4ad22-d920-2754-30dd-b1f228c0a87d@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:07:29 +0800
From: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Marco Benatto
	<marco.antonio.780@...il.com>,
        Juerg Haefliger
	<juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Add support for eXclusive Page Frame Ownership

Hi Tycho,

On 2017/9/11 23:02, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Hi Yisheng,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 06:34:45PM +0800, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>> Hi Tycho ,
>>
>> On 2017/9/8 1:35, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Here is v6 of the XPFO set; see v5 discussion here:
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/9/803
>>>
>>> Changelogs are in the individual patch notes, but the highlights are:
>>> * add primitives for ensuring memory areas are mapped (although these are quite
>>>   ugly, using stack allocation; I'm open to better suggestions)
>>> * instead of not flushing caches, re-map pages using the above
>>> * TLB flushing is much more correct (i.e. we're always flushing everything
>>>   everywhere). I suspect we may be able to back this off in some cases, but I'm
>>>   still trying to collect performance numbers to prove this is worth doing.
>>>
>>> I have no TODOs left for this set myself, other than fixing whatever review
>>> feedback people have. Thoughts and testing welcome!
>>
>> According to the paper of Vasileios P. Kemerlis et al, the mainline kernel
>> will not set the Pro. of physmap(direct map area) to RW(X), so do we really
>> need XPFO to protect from ret2dir attack?
> 
> I guess you're talking about section 4.3? 
Yes

> They mention that that x86
> only gets rw, but that aarch64 is rwx still.
IIRC, the in kernel of v4.13 the aarch64 is not rwx, I will check it.

> 
> But in either case this still provides access protection, similar to
> SMAP. Also, if I understand things correctly the protections are
> unmanaged, so a page that had the +x bit set at some point, it could
> be used for ret2dir.
So you means that the Pro. of direct map area maybe changed to +x, then ret2dir attack can use it?

Thanks
Yisheng Xie

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