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  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:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:01:46 +0200
From:   Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmalloc: randomize vmalloc() allocations

On 15.3.2021 19.47, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:16:26AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 01:24:10PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:04:42AM +0200, Topi Miettinen wrote:
>>>> What's the problem with that? It seems to me that nothing relies on specific
>>>> addresses of the chunks, so it should be possible to randomize these too.
>>>> Also the alignment is honored.
>>>>
>>> My concern are:
>>>
>>> - it is not a vmalloc allocator;
>>> - per-cpu allocator allocates chunks, thus it might be it happens only once. It does not allocate it often;
>>
>> That's actually the reason to randomize it: if it always ends up in the
>> same place at every boot, it becomes a stable target for attackers.
>>
> Probably we can randomize a base address only once when pcpu-allocator
> allocates a fist chunk during the boot.
> 
>>> - changing it will likely introduce issues you are not aware of;
>>> - it is not supposed to be interacting with vmalloc allocator. Read the
>>>    comment under pcpu_get_vm_areas();
>>>
>>> Therefore i propose just not touch it.
>>
>> How about splitting it from this patch instead? Then it can get separate
>> testing, etc.
>>
> It should be split as well as tested.

Would you prefer another kernel option `randomize_percpu_allocator=1`, 
or would it be OK to make it a flag in `randomize_vmalloc`, like 
`randomize_vmalloc=3`? Maybe the latter would not be compatible with 
static branches.

-Topi

> 
> --
> Vlad Rezki
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists