[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201104143500.GC28902@gaia>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:35:00 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>,
Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] aarch64: avoid mprotect(PROT_BTI|PROT_EXEC) [BZ
#26831]
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 11:55:57AM +0200, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> On 4.11.2020 11.29, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Will Deacon:
> >
> > > Is there real value in this seccomp filter if it only looks at mprotect(),
> > > or was it just implemented because it's easy to do and sounds like a good
> > > idea?
> >
> > It seems bogus to me. Everyone will just create alias mappings instead,
> > just like they did for the similar SELinux feature. See “Example code
> > to avoid execmem violations” in:
> >
> > <https://www.akkadia.org/drepper/selinux-mem.html>
[...]
> > As you can see, this reference implementation creates a PROT_WRITE
> > mapping aliased to a PROT_EXEC mapping, so it actually reduces security
> > compared to something that generates the code in an anonymous mapping
> > and calls mprotect to make it executable.
[...]
> If a service legitimately needs executable and writable mappings (due to
> JIT, trampolines etc), it's easy to disable the filter whenever really
> needed with "MemoryDenyWriteExecute=no" (which is the default) in case of
> systemd or a TE rule like "allow type_t self:process { execmem };" for
> SELinux. But this shouldn't be the default case, since there are many
> services which don't need W&X.
I think Drepper's point is that separate X and W mappings, with enough
randomisation, would be more secure than allowing W&X at the same
address (but, of course, less secure than not having W at all, though
that's not always possible).
> I'd also question what is the value of BTI if it can be easily circumvented
> by removing PROT_BTI with mprotect()?
Well, BTI is a protection against JOP attacks. The assumption here is
that an attacker cannot invoke mprotect() to disable PROT_BTI. If it
can, it's probably not worth bothering with a subsequent JOP attack, it
can already call functions directly.
I see MDWX not as a way of detecting attacks but rather plugging
inadvertent security holes in certain programs. On arm64, such hardening
currently gets in the way of another hardening feature, BTI.
--
Catalin
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.
