linux-kernel - Re: [CRIU] [PATCH 1/3] prctl: reduce permissions to change boundaries of data, brk and stack

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:29:22 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Andrew Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
	Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	criu@...nvz.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [CRIU] [PATCH 1/3] prctl: reduce permissions to change
 boundaries of data, brk and stack

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:18:46PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > Why can't you have the process of interest do:
> >> > 	ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACHME);
> >> > 	execve(executable, args, ...);
> >> >         
> >> >         /* Have the ptracer inject the recovery/fixup code */
> >> > 	    /* Fix up the mostly correct process to look like it has been
> >> >          * executing for a while.
> >> >          */
> >
> > Erik, it seems I don't understand how it will help us to restore
> > the mm fields mentioned above?
> 
> Because exec is how those mm fields are set when you don't use
> prctl_set_mm.  So execpt for the stack and the brk limits that
> will simply result in the values being set to what the usually
> would be set to.

Yes, all these fields are set up by kernel's elf loader but this
routine is a way more time consuming than a clone call. But gimme
some time to examine all possible problems we might have with such
approach and if there a way to solve them.

> >> Let's imagine we do that.
> >> 
> >> This means, that the whole memory contents should be restored _after_
> >> the execve() call, since the execve() flushes old mappings. In
> >> that case we lose the ability to preserve any shared memory regions
> >> between any two processes. This "shared" can be either regular
> >> MAP_SHARED mappings or MAP_ANONYMOUS but still not COW-ed ones.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/