[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <82ab0116-ac67-c80a-73d5-a812e38eb547@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:51:07 -0800
From: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
To: Jinbum Park <jinb.park7@...il.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com, mark.rutland@....com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, keescook@...omium.org, vladimir.murzin@....com,
arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm: mm: dump: add checking for
writable and executable pages
On 12/04/2017 06:27 AM, Jinbum Park wrote:
> Page mappings with full RWX permissions are a security risk.
> x86, arm64 has an option to walk the page tables
> and dump any bad pages.
>
> (1404d6f13e47
> ("arm64: dump: Add checking for writable and exectuable pages"))
> Add a similar implementation for arm.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jinbum Park <jinb.park7@...il.com>
> ---
> v3: Reuse pg_level, prot_bits to check ro, nx prot.
>
> arch/arm/Kconfig.debug | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm/include/asm/ptdump.h | 8 +++++++
> arch/arm/mm/dump.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm/mm/init.c | 2 ++
> 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug b/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug
> index e7b94db..78a6470 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -20,6 +20,33 @@ config ARM_PTDUMP_DEBUGFS
> kernel.
> If in doubt, say "N"
>
> +config DEBUG_WX
> + bool "Warn on W+X mappings at boot"
> + select ARM_PTDUMP_CORE
> + ---help---
> + Generate a warning if any W+X mappings are found at boot.
> +
> + This is useful for discovering cases where the kernel is leaving
> + W+X mappings after applying NX, as such mappings are a security risk.
> +
> + Look for a message in dmesg output like this:
> +
> + arm/mm: Checked W+X mappings: passed, no W+X pages found.
> +
> + or like this, if the check failed:
> +
> + arm/mm: Checked W+X mappings: FAILED, <N> W+X pages found.
> +
> + Note that even if the check fails, your kernel is possibly
> + still fine, as W+X mappings are not a security hole in
> + themselves, what they do is that they make the exploitation
> + of other unfixed kernel bugs easier.
> +
> + There is no runtime or memory usage effect of this option
> + once the kernel has booted up - it's a one time check.
> +
> + If in doubt, say "Y".
> +
> # RMK wants arm kernels compiled with frame pointers or stack unwinding.
> # If you know what you are doing and are willing to live without stack
> # traces, you can get a slightly smaller kernel by setting this option to
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/ptdump.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/ptdump.h
> index 3a6c0b7..b6a0162 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/ptdump.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/ptdump.h
> @@ -43,6 +43,14 @@ static inline int ptdump_debugfs_register(struct ptdump_info *info,
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_PTDUMP_DEBUGFS */
>
> +void ptdump_check_wx(void);
> +
> #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_PTDUMP_CORE */
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WX
> +#define debug_checkwx() ptdump_check_wx()
> +#else
> +#define debug_checkwx() do { } while (0)
> +#endif
> +
> #endif /* __ASM_PTDUMP_H */
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dump.c b/arch/arm/mm/dump.c
> index 43a2bee..3e2e6f0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/dump.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/dump.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ struct pg_state {
> unsigned long start_address;
> unsigned level;
> u64 current_prot;
> + bool check_wx;
> + unsigned long wx_pages;
> const char *current_domain;
> };
>
> @@ -194,6 +196,8 @@ struct pg_level {
> const struct prot_bits *bits;
> size_t num;
> u64 mask;
> + const struct prot_bits *ro_bit;
> + const struct prot_bits *nx_bit;
> };
>
> static struct pg_level pg_level[] = {
> @@ -203,9 +207,17 @@ struct pg_level {
> }, { /* pmd */
> .bits = section_bits,
> .num = ARRAY_SIZE(section_bits),
> + #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
> + .ro_bit = section_bits + 1,
> + #else
> + .ro_bit = section_bits,
> + #endif
> + .nx_bit = section_bits + ARRAY_SIZE(section_bits) - 2,
> }, { /* pte */
> .bits = pte_bits,
> .num = ARRAY_SIZE(pte_bits),
> + .ro_bit = pte_bits + 1,
> + .nx_bit = pte_bits + 2,
> },
> };
>
This is better but the addition offset from the array is still
prone to breakage if we add entries. Maybe something like this
on top of yours:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dump.c b/arch/arm/mm/dump.c
index 3e2e6f06e4d9..572cbc4dc247 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/dump.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/dump.c
@@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ struct prot_bits {
u64 val;
const char *set;
const char *clear;
+ bool ro_bit;
+ bool x_bit;
};
static const struct prot_bits pte_bits[] = {
@@ -75,11 +77,13 @@ static const struct prot_bits pte_bits[] = {
.val = L_PTE_RDONLY,
.set = "ro",
.clear = "RW",
+ .ro_bit = true,
}, {
.mask = L_PTE_XN,
.val = L_PTE_XN,
.set = "NX",
.clear = "x ",
+ .x_bit = true,
}, {
.mask = L_PTE_SHARED,
.val = L_PTE_SHARED,
@@ -143,11 +147,13 @@ static const struct prot_bits section_bits[] = {
.val = L_PMD_SECT_RDONLY | PMD_SECT_AP2,
.set = "ro",
.clear = "RW",
+ .ro_bit = true,
#elif __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 6
{
.mask = PMD_SECT_APX | PMD_SECT_AP_READ | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE,
.val = PMD_SECT_APX | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE,
.set = " ro",
+ .ro_bit = true,
}, {
.mask = PMD_SECT_APX | PMD_SECT_AP_READ | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE,
.val = PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE,
@@ -166,6 +172,7 @@ static const struct prot_bits section_bits[] = {
.mask = PMD_SECT_AP_READ | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE,
.val = 0,
.set = " ro",
+ .ro_bit = true,
}, {
.mask = PMD_SECT_AP_READ | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE,
.val = PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE,
@@ -184,6 +191,7 @@ static const struct prot_bits section_bits[] = {
.val = PMD_SECT_XN,
.set = "NX",
.clear = "x ",
+ .x_bit = true,
}, {
.mask = PMD_SECT_S,
.val = PMD_SECT_S,
@@ -207,17 +215,9 @@ static struct pg_level pg_level[] = {
}, { /* pmd */
.bits = section_bits,
.num = ARRAY_SIZE(section_bits),
- #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
- .ro_bit = section_bits + 1,
- #else
- .ro_bit = section_bits,
- #endif
- .nx_bit = section_bits + ARRAY_SIZE(section_bits) - 2,
}, { /* pte */
.bits = pte_bits,
.num = ARRAY_SIZE(pte_bits),
- .ro_bit = pte_bits + 1,
- .nx_bit = pte_bits + 2,
},
};
@@ -410,8 +410,13 @@ static void ptdump_initialize(void)
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pg_level); i++)
if (pg_level[i].bits)
- for (j = 0; j < pg_level[i].num; j++)
+ for (j = 0; j < pg_level[i].num; j++) {
pg_level[i].mask |= pg_level[i].bits[j].mask;
+ if (pg_level[i].bits[j].ro_bit)
+ pg_level[i].ro_bit = &pg_level[i].bits[j];
+ if (pg_level[i].bits[j].x_bit)
+ pg_level[i].nx_bit = &pg_level[i].bits[j];
+ }
address_markers[2].start_address = VMALLOC_START;
}
> @@ -226,6 +238,23 @@ static void dump_prot(struct pg_state *st, const struct prot_bits *bits, size_t
> }
> }
>
> +static void note_prot_wx(struct pg_state *st, unsigned long addr)
> +{
> + if (!st->check_wx)
> + return;
> + if ((st->current_prot & pg_level[st->level].ro_bit->mask) ==
> + pg_level[st->level].ro_bit->val)
> + return;
> + if ((st->current_prot & pg_level[st->level].nx_bit->mask) ==
> + pg_level[st->level].nx_bit->val)
> + return;
> +
> + WARN_ONCE(1, "arm/mm: Found insecure W+X mapping at address %p/%pS\n",
> + (void *)st->start_address, (void *)st->start_address);
> +
With the new %p hashing, printing just %p is not useful, so just drop
it and just have the %pS.
Thanks,
Laura
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.
