[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150507093639.GA4522@cachalot>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 12:36:39 +0300
From: Vasily Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc: Wen Xu <hotdog3645@...il.com>, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Linux kernel pointer poisoning (was: CVE request for a fixed bug
existed in all versions of linux kernel from KeenTeam)
[cc'ed kernel-hardening@]
On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 15:53 +0300, Solar Designer wrote:
> Then, perhaps we should harden the poison pointers to be either below
> typical mmap_min_addr or in an unmapped portion of kernel space? Do I
> understand correctly that, short of possible mmap_min_addr bypasses in
> general (if relevant), this would mitigate the issue?
>
> Right now, they are:
>
> /*
> * These are non-NULL pointers that will result in page faults
> * under normal circumstances, used to verify that nobody uses
> * non-initialized list entries.
> */
> #define LIST_POISON1 ((void *) 0x00100100 + POISON_POINTER_DELTA)
> #define LIST_POISON2 ((void *) 0x00200200 + POISON_POINTER_DELTA)
>
> I'd change them to e.g.:
>
> #define LIST_POISON1 ((void *) 0x00000100 + POISON_POINTER_DELTA)
> #define LIST_POISON2 ((void *) 0x00000200 + POISON_POINTER_DELTA)
>
> where POISON_POINTER_DELTA would normally be 0 on 32-bit x86, so they'd
> be below mmap_min_addr on that arch. Meanwhile, a mitigation appears to
> be to set mmap_min_addr higher than 0x00200200 (slightly over 2 MB), but
> that's not great as it leaves significantly less ASCII-armored space for
> libraries.
>
> BTW, it appears that on x86_64 POISON_POINTER_DELTA is
> 0xdead000000000000 by default, which I guess would hit an unmapped page
> even with the current LIST_POISON2 value? If so, is the bug at worst a
> kernel Oops on x86_64 unless someone changed POISON_POINTER_DELTA in
> their build?
>
> config ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE
> hex
> default 0 if X86_32
> default 0xdead000000000000 if X86_64
>
> Regardless, as a supporter of that kernel patch, I am embarrassed!
Besides setting current poison pointer constant to sane values we should
also think of API clearness and usability. I'd want to also slightly
change the macros in question to ease common kernel developer to
introduce new poison pointer constants for new subsystems.
What do we want from the API?
1) poisoned pointer base must be non-mmap'able
2) all poisoned pointers (i.e. base+offset) must be non-mmap'able
3) a small offset relative to poisoned pointers must be non-mmap'able
4) poisoned pointers from different subsystems should be different
A kernel developer might want to pass a subsystem id to a macro instead
of explicit math, like in the following patch:
diff --git a/include/linux/poison.h b/include/linux/poison.h
index 7b2a7fc..5cdff6b 100644
--- a/include/linux/poison.h
+++ b/include/linux/poison.h
@@ -1,40 +1,54 @@
#ifndef _LINUX_POISON_H
#define _LINUX_POISON_H
+#include <linux/bug.h>
/********** include/linux/list.h **********/
/*
* Architectures might want to move the poison pointer offset
* into some well-recognized area such as 0xdead000000000000,
- * that is also not mappable by user-space exploits:
+ * that is also not mappable by user-space exploits,
+ * by adjusting CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE:
*/
#ifdef CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE
# define POISON_POINTER_DELTA _AC(CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE, UL)
#else
# define POISON_POINTER_DELTA 0
#endif
+/*
+ * Poisoned pointers of different subsystems should be different
+ * but must not move far away from POISON_POINTER_DELTA.
+ * Otherwise poisoned pointer might be mmap'able on some architectures.
+ */
+#define POISON_AREA_SIZE 0x1000
+#define POISON_POINTER(x) \
+ ({ \
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(x >= POISON_AREA_SIZE); \
+ ((void *)(x) + POISON_POINTER_DELTA);})
/*
* These are non-NULL pointers that will result in page faults
* under normal circumstances, used to verify that nobody uses
* non-initialized list entries.
*/
-#define LIST_POISON1 ((void *) 0x00100100 + POISON_POINTER_DELTA)
-#define LIST_POISON2 ((void *) 0x00200200 + POISON_POINTER_DELTA)
+#define LIST_POISON1 POISON_POINTER(0x0100)
+#define LIST_POISON2 POISON_POINTER(0x0200)
/********** include/linux/timer.h **********/
/*
* Magic number "tsta" to indicate a static timer initializer
* for the object debugging code.
*/
-#define TIMER_ENTRY_STATIC ((void *) 0x74737461)
+#define TIMER_ENTRY_STATIC ((void*)0x0300 + POISON_POINTER_DELTA)
+// FIXME
+//#define TIMER_ENTRY_STATIC POISON_POINTER(0x0300)
/********** mm/debug-pagealloc.c **********/
#define PAGE_POISON 0xaa
/********** mm/page_alloc.c ************/
-#define TAIL_MAPPING ((void *) 0x01014A11 + POISON_POINTER_DELTA)
+#define TAIL_MAPPING POISON_POINTER(0x0400)
/********** mm/slab.c **********/
/*
POISON_POINTER() checks whether an offset argument is sane. If it is
not, it leads to a build failure:
CC mm/page_alloc.o
mm/page_alloc.c: In function 'free_pages_prepare':
mm/page_alloc.c:840:23: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_840' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: 0x0111400 >= POISON_AREA_SIZE
mm/page_alloc.c: In function 'prep_compound_page':
mm/page_alloc.c:447:16: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_447' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: 0x0111400 >= POISON_AREA_SIZE
make[1]: *** [mm/page_alloc.o] Error 1
make: *** [mm] Error 2
Two questions here:
a) how to fairy use arch-specific non-mmap'able zone to resolve (2) and
(3)? Current 0x1000 is a hardcoded copy-pasted default value of
DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR. Using DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR instead of 0x1000
might not be a solution -- we don't want a build to fail in this case,
user must be able to use DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR=0 too.
b) how to check for an insane POISON_POINTER() arg in case of
TIMER_ENTRY_STATIC (and such)? The current implementation of
POISON_POINTER() fails as following:
mm/page_alloc.c: In function 'free_pages_prepare':
mm/page_alloc.c:840:23: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_840' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: 0x0111400 >= POISON_AREA_SIZE
Thanks,
--
Vasily Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
