[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <F5664C1D-C3E7-433B-8E5A-7967023E0567@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 11:39:32 -0800
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
"Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vmalloc: New flag for flush before releasing pages
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:01 AM Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 10:53:50AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> If we are going to unmap the linear alias, why not do it at vmalloc()
>>>> time rather than vfree() time?
>>>
>>> That’s not totally nuts. Do we ever have code that expects __va() to
>>> work on module data? Perhaps crypto code trying to encrypt static
>>> data because our APIs don’t understand virtual addresses. I guess if
>>> highmem is ever used for modules, then we should be fine.
>>>
>>> RO instead of not present might be safer. But I do like the idea of
>>> renaming Rick's flag to something like VM_XPFO or VM_NO_DIRECT_MAP and
>>> making it do all of this.
>>
>> Yeah, doing it for everything automatically seemed like it was/is
>> going to be a lot of work to debug all the corner cases where things
>> expect memory to be mapped but don't explicitly say it. And in
>> particular, the XPFO series only does it for user memory, whereas an
>> additional flag like this would work for extra paranoid allocations
>> of kernel memory too.
>
> I just read the code, and I looks like vmalloc() is already using
> highmem (__GFP_HIGH) if available, so, on big x86_32 systems, for
> example, we already don't have modules in the direct map.
>
> So I say we go for it. This should be quite simple to implement --
> the pageattr code already has almost all the needed logic on x86. The
> only arch support we should need is a pair of functions to remove a
> vmalloc address range from the address map (if it was present in the
> first place) and a function to put it back. On x86, this should only
> be a few lines of code.
>
> What do you all think? This should solve most of the problems we have.
>
> If we really wanted to optimize this, we'd make it so that
> module_alloc() allocates memory the normal way, then, later on, we
> call some function that, all at once, removes the memory from the
> direct map and applies the right permissions to the vmalloc alias (or
> just makes the vmalloc alias not-present so we can add permissions
> later without flushing), and flushes the TLB. And we arrange for
> vunmap to zap the vmalloc range, then put the memory back into the
> direct map, then free the pages back to the page allocator, with the
> flush in the appropriate place.
>
> I don't see why the page allocator needs to know about any of this.
> It's already okay with the permissions being changed out from under it
> on x86, and it seems fine. Rick, do you want to give some variant of
> this a try?
Setting it as read-only may work (and already happens for the read-only
module data). I am not sure about setting it as non-present.
At some point, a discussion about a threat-model, as Rick indicated, would
be required. I presume ROP attacks can easily call set_all_modules_text_rw()
and override all the protections.
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.
