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:	Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:39:07 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/26] x86, pkeys: Documentation

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> wrote:
>
>> > If yes then this could be a significant security feature / usecase for pkeys:

Which CPUs (will) have pkeys?

>> > executable sections of shared libraries and binaries could be mapped with pkey
>> > access disabled. If I read the Intel documentation correctly then that should
>> > be possible.
>>
>> Agreed.  I've even heard from some researchers who are interested in this:
>>
>> https://www.infsec.cs.uni-saarland.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/10/nuernberger2014ccs_disclosure.pdf
>
> So could we try to add an (opt-in) kernel option that enables this transparently
> and automatically for all PROT_EXEC && !PROT_WRITE mappings, without any
> user-space changes and syscalls necessary?

I would like this very much. :)

> Beyond the security improvement, this would enable this hardware feature on most
> x86 Linux distros automatically, on supported hardware, which is good for testing.
>
> Assuming it boots up fine on a typical distro, i.e. assuming that there are no
> surprises where PROT_READ && PROT_EXEC sections are accessed as data.

I can't wait to find out what implicitly expects PROT_READ from
PROT_EXEC mappings. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ