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:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 16:31:43 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     alex.popov@...ux.com
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Maciej Rozycki <macro@...am.me.uk>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Wei Liu <wl@....org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        David S Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, notify@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce the pkill_on_warn boot parameter

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 22:01:33 +0300 Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com> wrote:

> On 29.09.2021 21:58, Alexander Popov wrote:
> > Currently, the Linux kernel provides two types of reaction to kernel
> > warnings:
> >  1. Do nothing (by default),
> >  2. Call panic() if panic_on_warn is set. That's a very strong reaction,
> >     so panic_on_warn is usually disabled on production systems.
> > 
> > From a safety point of view, the Linux kernel misses a middle way of
> > handling kernel warnings:
> >  - The kernel should stop the activity that provokes a warning,
> >  - But the kernel should avoid complete denial of service.
> > 
> > From a security point of view, kernel warning messages provide a lot of
> > useful information for attackers. Many GNU/Linux distributions allow
> > unprivileged users to read the kernel log, so attackers use kernel
> > warning infoleak in vulnerability exploits. See the examples:
> >   https://a13xp0p0v.github.io/2020/02/15/CVE-2019-18683.html
> >   https://a13xp0p0v.github.io/2021/02/09/CVE-2021-26708.html
> > 
> > Let's introduce the pkill_on_warn boot parameter.
> > If this parameter is set, the kernel kills all threads in a process
> > that provoked a kernel warning. This behavior is reasonable from a safety
> > point of view described above. It is also useful for kernel security
> > hardening because the system kills an exploit process that hits a
> > kernel warning.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
> 
> This patch was tested using CONFIG_LKDTM.
> The kernel kills a process that performs this:
>   echo WARNING > /sys/kernel/debug/provoke-crash/DIRECT
> 
> If you are fine with this approach, I will prepare a patch adding the
> pkill_on_warn sysctl.

Why do we need a boot parameter?  Isn't a sysctl all we need for this
feature?

Also, 

	if (pkill_on_warn && system_state >= SYSTEM_RUNNING)
		do_group_exit(SIGKILL);

- why do we care about system_state?  An explanatory code comment
  seems appropriate.

- do we really want to do this in states > SYSTEM_RUNNING?  If so, why?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists