linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm/memfd: MFD_NOEXEC for memfd

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2022 19:45:42 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
Cc:     jeffxu@...gle.com, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
        dverkamp@...omium.org, hughd@...gle.com, jorgelo@...omium.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, mnissler@...omium.org, jannh@...gle.com,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        dev@...ncontainers.org, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm/memfd: MFD_NOEXEC for memfd_create

On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 04:14:39PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote:
> Sorry for the long overdue reply.

No worries! I am a fan of thread necromancy. :)

> [...]
> 1> memfd_create:
> Add two flags:
> #define MFD_EXEC                      0x0008
> #define MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL    0x0010
> This lets application to set executable bit explicitly.
> (If application set both, it will be rejected)

So no MFD_NOEXEC without seal? (I'm fine with that.)

> 2> For old application that doesn't set executable bit:
> Add a pid name-spaced sysctl.kernel.pid_mfd_noexec, with:

bikeshed: vm.memfd_noexec
(doesn't belong in "kernel", and seems better suited to "vm" than "fs")

> value = 0: Default_EXEC
>      Honor MFD_EXEC and MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL
>      When none is set, will fall back to original behavior (EXEC)

Yeah. Rephrasing for myself to understand more clearly:

"memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL act like MFD_EXEC
was set."

> value = 1: Default_NOEXEC_SEAL
>       Honor MFD_EXEC and MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL
>       When none is set, will default to MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL

"memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL act like
MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL was set."

Also, I think there should be a pr_warn_ratelimited() when
memfd_create() is used without either bit, so that there is some
pressure to please adjust their API calls to explicitly set a bit.

> 3> Add a pid name-spaced sysctl kernel.pid_mfd_noexec_enforced: with:
> value = 0: default, not enforced.
> value = 1: enforce NOEXEC_SEAL (overwrite everything)

How about making this just mode "value 2" for the first sysctl?
"memfd_create() without MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL will be rejected."

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook