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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:34:56 +0100
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        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 Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:01:46AM +0200, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> 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.
> 
I think it is better to have a separate option, because there are two
different allocators.

--
Vlad Rezki

Powered by blists - more mailing lists