[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJHCu1Jrtx=OVEiTVwPJg7CxRkV83tS=HsYeLoAGRf_tgYq_iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 18:52:50 +0100
From: Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
To: Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
systemd-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BTI interaction between seccomp filters in systemd and glibc
mprotect calls, causing service failures
Hi,
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 23:24, Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com> wrote:
> SARA looks interesting. What is missing is a prctl() to enable all W^X
> protections irrevocably for the current process, then systemd could
> enable it for services with MemoryDenyWriteExecute=yes.
SARA actually has a procattr[0] interface to do just that.
There is also a library[1] to help using it.
> I didn't also see specific measures against memfd_create() or file
> system W&X, but perhaps those can be added later.
You are right, there are no measures against those vectors.
It would be interesting to add them, though.
> Maybe pkey_mprotect()
> is not handled either unless it uses the same LSM hook as mprotect().
IIRC mprotect is implemented more or less as a pkey_mprotect with -1 as pkey.
The same LSM hook should cover both.
Salvatore
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1562410493-8661-10-git-send-email-s.mesoraca16@gmail.com/
[1] https://github.com/smeso/libsara
Powered by blists - more mailing lists