|
Message-ID: <b78d2d0d-04cf-c0a9-bd88-20c6ec6705fd@python.org> Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 13:47:24 +0200 From: Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org> To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de> Cc: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>, Eric Chiang <ericchiang@...gle.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, Mickaël Salaün <mickael.salaun@....gouv.fr>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, Philippe Trébuchet <philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr>, Scott Shell <scottsh@...rosoft.com>, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>, Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Add support for RESOLVE_MAYEXEC On 29/04/2020 00.01, Jann Horn wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:21 PM Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de> wrote: >> * Jann Horn: >> >>> Just as a comment: You'd probably also have to use RESOLVE_MAYEXEC in >>> the dynamic linker. >> >> Absolutely. In typical configurations, the kernel does not enforce >> that executable mappings must be backed by files which are executable. >> It's most obvious with using an explicit loader invocation to run >> executables on noexec mounts. RESOLVE_MAYEXEC is much more useful >> than trying to reimplement the kernel permission checks (or what some >> believe they should be) in userspace. > > Oh, good point. > > That actually seems like something Mickaël could add to his series? If > someone turns on that knob for "When an interpreter wants to execute > something, enforce that we have execute access to it", they probably > also don't want it to be possible to just map files as executable? So > perhaps when that flag is on, the kernel should either refuse to map > anything as executable if it wasn't opened with RESOLVE_MAYEXEC or > (less strict) if RESOLVE_MAYEXEC wasn't used, print a warning, then > check whether the file is executable and bail out if not? > > A configuration where interpreters verify that scripts are executable, > but other things can just mmap executable pages, seems kinda > inconsistent... +1 I worked with Steve Downer on Python PEP 578 [1] that added audit hooks and PyFile_OpenCode() to CPython. A PyFile_OpenCode() implementation with RESOLVE_MAYEXEC will hep to secure loading of Python code. But Python also includes a wrapper of libffi. ctypes or cffi can load native code from either shared libraries with dlopen() or execute native code from mmap() regions. For example SnakeEater [2] is a clever attack that abused memfd_create syscall and proc filesystem to execute code. A consistent security policy must also ensure that mmap() PROT_EXEC enforces the same restrictions as RESOLVE_MAYEXEC. The restriction doesn't have be part of this patch, though. Christian [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0578/ [2] https://github.com/nullbites/SnakeEater/blob/master/SnakeEater2.py
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.