[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202007141406.43B82CCFD@keescook>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:24:39 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Christopher M. Riedl" <cmr@...ormatik.wtf>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] powerpc: Add LKDTM test to hijack a patch mapping
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:03:16PM -0500, Christopher M. Riedl wrote:
> When live patching with STRICT_KERNEL_RWX, the CPU doing the patching
> must use a temporary mapping which allows for writing to kernel text.
> During the entire window of time when this temporary mapping is in use,
> another CPU could write to the same mapping and maliciously alter kernel
> text. Implement a LKDTM test to attempt to exploit such a openings when
> a CPU is patching under STRICT_KERNEL_RWX. The test is only implemented
> on powerpc for now.
>
> The LKDTM "hijack" test works as follows:
>
> 1. A CPU executes an infinite loop to patch an instruction.
> This is the "patching" CPU.
> 2. Another CPU attempts to write to the address of the temporary
> mapping used by the "patching" CPU. This other CPU is the
> "hijacker" CPU. The hijack either fails with a segfault or
> succeeds, in which case some kernel text is now overwritten.
>
> How to run the test:
>
> mount -t debugfs none /sys/kernel/debug
> (echo HIJACK_PATCH > /sys/kernel/debug/provoke-crash/DIRECT)
>
> Signed-off-by: Christopher M. Riedl <cmr@...ormatik.wtf>
> ---
> drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c | 1 +
> drivers/misc/lkdtm/lkdtm.h | 1 +
> drivers/misc/lkdtm/perms.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 101 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c
> index a5e344df9166..482e72f6a1e1 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c
> @@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ static const struct crashtype crashtypes[] = {
> CRASHTYPE(WRITE_RO),
> CRASHTYPE(WRITE_RO_AFTER_INIT),
> CRASHTYPE(WRITE_KERN),
> + CRASHTYPE(HIJACK_PATCH),
> CRASHTYPE(REFCOUNT_INC_OVERFLOW),
> CRASHTYPE(REFCOUNT_ADD_OVERFLOW),
> CRASHTYPE(REFCOUNT_INC_NOT_ZERO_OVERFLOW),
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/lkdtm.h b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/lkdtm.h
> index 601a2156a0d4..bfcf3542370d 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/lkdtm.h
> +++ b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/lkdtm.h
> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ void lkdtm_EXEC_USERSPACE(void);
> void lkdtm_EXEC_NULL(void);
> void lkdtm_ACCESS_USERSPACE(void);
> void lkdtm_ACCESS_NULL(void);
> +void lkdtm_HIJACK_PATCH(void);
>
> /* lkdtm_refcount.c */
> void lkdtm_REFCOUNT_INC_OVERFLOW(void);
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/perms.c b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/perms.c
> index 62f76d506f04..b7149daaeb6f 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/perms.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/perms.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> #include <linux/mman.h>
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> +#include <linux/kthread.h>
> #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
>
> /* Whether or not to fill the target memory area with do_nothing(). */
> @@ -213,6 +214,104 @@ void lkdtm_ACCESS_NULL(void)
> *ptr = tmp;
> }
>
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC) && defined(CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX)
> +#include <include/asm/code-patching.h>
> +
> +static struct ppc_inst * const patch_site = (struct ppc_inst *)&do_nothing;
While this is probably fine, I'd prefer a new target instead of re-using
do_nothing.
> +
> +static int lkdtm_patching_cpu(void *data)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> + struct ppc_inst insn = ppc_inst(0xdeadbeef);
> +
> + pr_info("starting patching_cpu=%d\n", smp_processor_id());
> + do {
> + err = patch_instruction(patch_site, insn);
> + } while (ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read(READ_ONCE(patch_site)), insn) &&
> + !err && !kthread_should_stop());
> +
> + if (err)
> + pr_warn("patch_instruction returned error: %d\n", err);
> +
> + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> + while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> + schedule();
> + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> + }
> +
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +void lkdtm_HIJACK_PATCH(void)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *patching_kthrd;
> + struct ppc_inst original_insn;
> + int patching_cpu, hijacker_cpu, attempts;
> + unsigned long addr;
> + bool hijacked;
> +
> + if (num_online_cpus() < 2) {
> + pr_warn("need at least two cpus\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + original_insn = ppc_inst_read(READ_ONCE(patch_site));
> +
> + hijacker_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + patching_cpu = cpumask_any_but(cpu_online_mask, hijacker_cpu);
> +
> + patching_kthrd = kthread_create_on_node(&lkdtm_patching_cpu, NULL,
> + cpu_to_node(patching_cpu),
> + "lkdtm_patching_cpu");
> + kthread_bind(patching_kthrd, patching_cpu);
> + wake_up_process(patching_kthrd);
> +
> + addr = offset_in_page(patch_site) | read_cpu_patching_addr(patching_cpu);
> +
> + pr_info("starting hijacker_cpu=%d\n", hijacker_cpu);
> + for (attempts = 0; attempts < 100000; ++attempts) {
> + /* Use __put_user to catch faults without an Oops */
> + hijacked = !__put_user(0xbad00bad, (unsigned int *)addr);
> +
> + if (hijacked) {
> + if (kthread_stop(patching_kthrd))
> + goto out;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + pr_info("hijack attempts: %d\n", attempts);
> +
> + if (hijacked) {
> + if (*(unsigned int *)READ_ONCE(patch_site) == 0xbad00bad)
> + pr_err("overwrote kernel text\n");
> + /*
> + * There are window conditions where the hijacker cpu manages to
> + * write to the patch site but the site gets overwritten again by
> + * the patching cpu. We still consider that a "successful" hijack
> + * since the hijacker cpu did not fault on the write.
> + */
> + pr_err("FAIL: wrote to another cpu's patching area\n");
> + } else {
> + kthread_stop(patching_kthrd);
> + }
> +
> +out:
> + /* Restore the original insn for any future lkdtm tests */
> + patch_instruction(patch_site, original_insn);
Can this test be done for x86's instruction patching too?
> +}
> +
> +#else
> +
> +void lkdtm_HIJACK_PATCH(void)
> +{
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC))
> + pr_err("XFAIL: this test is powerpc-only\n");
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX))
> + pr_err("XFAIL: this test requires CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX\n");
> +}
> +
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PPC && CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX */
> +
> void __init lkdtm_perms_init(void)
> {
> /* Make sure we can write to __ro_after_init values during __init */
> --
> 2.27.0
Otherwise, looks good!
--
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.
