linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 22/27] Lock down kprobes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:47:55 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        "Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/27] Lock down kprobes

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:41:23 -0700
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:30 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:09:49 -0700
> > Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> > >
> > > Disallow the creation of kprobes when the kernel is locked down by
> > > preventing their registration.  This prevents kprobes from being used to
> > > access kernel memory, either to make modifications or to steal crypto data.
> >
> > Hmm, if you enforce signature check of modules, those modules
> > should be allowed to use kprobes?
> > I think we should introduce some kind of trust inheritance from
> > signed (trusted) modules.
> 
> Is there any way to install a kprobe /without/ it coming from a
> module? The presumption in lockdown mode is that module signing is
> enforced, so I'll admit to not being entirely clear on why this patch
> is needed in that case.

Yes, there are 2 paths, ftrace and perf(bpf). If you want to disable ftrace
path (which start from user's input via tracefs), this should be done in
trace_kprobe_create()@kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c.
If you want to disable both, __register_trace_kprobe()@kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
is the best place.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>