[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101104114648.GA23381@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:46:48 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jason.wessel@...driver.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, tj@...nel.org, mort@....com, akpm@...l.org,
security@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: make /proc/kallsyms mode 400 to reduce ease of
attacking
* Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Making /proc/kallsyms readable only for root makes it harder for attackers to
> write generic kernel exploits by removing one source of knowledge where things are
> in the kernel.
Cc:-ed Linus - i think he argued in favor of such a patch in the past.
I generally agree with such patches (i have written some myself), but there's a few
questions with this one, which make this limited change ineffective and which make
it harder to implement a fuller patch that makes it truly harder to figure out the
precise kernel build:
- The real security obstruction effect is very small from this measure alone: the
overwhelming majority of our users are running distro kernels, so the Symbol.map
file (and hence 99% of /proc/kallsyms content) is well-known - unless we also
restrict 'uname -r' from nonprivileged users-ace. Hiding that might make sense -
but the two should be in one patch really.
- ( It will break a few tools that can be run as a plain user out of box - perf
for example. "chmod a+r /proc/kallsyms" during bootup will work that around so
it's not the end of the world. )
- For self-built kernels it might make sense - but there's "chmod a-r
/proc/kallsyms" during bootup one can do already.
- There's the side-question of module symbols - those are dynamically allocated
hence arguably per system. But module symbols make up only 1% on a typical
booted up full distro box.
So what does a distribution like Suse expect from this change alone? Those have
public packages in rpms which can be downloaded by anyone, so it makes little sense
to hide it - unless _all_ version information is hidden.
So i'd like to see a _full_ version info sandboxing patch that thinks through all
the angles and restricts uname -r kernel version info as well, and makes dmesg
unaccessible to users - and closes a few other information holes as well that give
away the exact kernel version - _that_ together will make it hard to blindly attack
a very specific kernel version.
But without actually declaring and achieving that sandboxing goal this security
measure is just a feel-good thing really - and makes it harder to make more
difficult steps down the road, like closing 'uname -r' ...
I fully expect Linus to overrule me on this, but hey, i had to try it and lay out my
arguments :-)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists