linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH RFC] Randomized slab caches for kmalloc()

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:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 17:15:44 +0200
From:   Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
CC:     "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1@...wei.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Wang Weiyang <wangweiyang2@...wei.com>,
        Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Randomized slab caches for kmalloc()

From: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 21:26:47 +0900

> On 3/15/2023 6:54 PM, GONG, Ruiqi wrote:
>> When exploiting memory vulnerabilities, "heap spraying" is a common
>> technique targeting those related to dynamic memory allocation (i.e. the
>> "heap"), and it plays an important role in a successful exploitation.
>> Basically, it is to overwrite the memory area of vulnerable object by
>> triggering allocation in other subsystems or modules and therefore
>> getting a reference to the targeted memory location. It's usable on
>> various types of vulnerablity including use after free (UAF), heap out-
>> of-bound write and etc.
>>
>> There are (at least) two reasons why the heap can be sprayed: 1) generic
>> slab caches are shared among different subsystems and modules, and
>> 2) dedicated slab caches could be merged with the generic ones.
>> Currently these two factors cannot be prevented at a low cost: the first
>> one is a widely used memory allocation mechanism, and shutting down slab
>> merging completely via `slub_nomerge` would be overkill.
>>
>> To efficiently prevent heap spraying, we propose the following approach:
>> to create multiple copies of generic slab caches that will never be
>> merged, and random one of them will be used at allocation. The random
>> selection is based on the location of code that calls `kmalloc()`, which
>> means it is static at runtime (rather than dynamically determined at
>> each time of allocation, which could be bypassed by repeatedly spraying
>> in brute force). In this way, the vulnerable object and memory allocated
>> in other subsystems and modules will (most probably) be on different
>> slab caches, which prevents the object from being sprayed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: GONG, Ruiqi <gongruiqi1@...wei.com>
>> ---
> 
> I'm not yet sure if this feature is appropriate for mainline kernel.
> 
> I have few questions:
> 
> 1) What is cost of this configuration, in terms of memory overhead, or
> execution time?
> 
> 
> 2) The actual cache depends on caller which is static at build time, not
> runtime.
> 
>     What about using (caller ^ (some subsystem-wide random sequence)),
> 
>     which is static at runtime?

Why can't we just do

	random_get_u32_below(CONFIG_RANDOM_KMALLOC_CACHES_NR)

?
It's fast enough according to Jason... `_RET_IP_ % nr` doesn't sound
"secure" to me. It really is a compile-time constant, which can be
calculated (or not?) manually. Even if it wasn't, `% nr` doesn't sound
good, there should be at least hash_32().

Thanks,
Olek