[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202003241604.7269C810B@keescook>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 16:07:53 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Optionally randomize kernel stack offset each
syscall
[-enrico, who is bouncing]
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:28:35PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 9:32 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > This is a continuation and refactoring of Elena's earlier effort to add
> > kernel stack base offset randomization. In the time since the previous
> > discussions, two attacks[1][2] were made public that depended on stack
> > determinism, so we're no longer in the position of "this is a good idea
> > but we have no examples of attacks". :)
> [...]
> > [1] https://a13xp0p0v.github.io/2020/02/15/CVE-2019-18683.html
>
> This one only starts using the stack's location after having parsed
> it out of dmesg (which in any environment that wants to provide a
> reasonable level of security really ought to be restricted to root),
> right? If you give people read access to dmesg, they can leak all
> sorts of pointers; not just the stack pointer, but also whatever else
> happens to be in the registers at that point - which is likely to give
> the attacker more ways to place controlled data at a known location.
> See e.g. <https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-cache-invalidation-bug-in-linux.html>,
> which leaks the pointer to a BPF map out of dmesg.
It was mentioned that it would re-use the base across syscalls, so this
defense would have frustrated it.
More to my point was that there still are attacks using a deterministic
stack as part of the exploit chain. We have a low-cost way to make that
go away.
> Also, are you sure that it isn't possible to make the syscall that
> leaked its stack pointer never return to userspace (via ptrace or
> SIGSTOP or something like that), and therefore never realign its
> stack, while keeping some controlled data present on the syscall's
> stack?
>
> > [2] https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/125357/2/374717.pdf
>
> That's a moderately large document; which specific part are you referencing?
IIRC, section 3.3 discusses using the stack for CFI bypass, though
thinking about it again, it may have been targeting pt_regs. I'll
double check and remove this reference if that's the case.
But, as I mention, this is proactive and I'd like to stop yet more
things from being able to depend on the stack location.
--
Kees Cook
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.
