linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Make /proc/slabinfo 0400

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1103060213110.6297@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>
Date:	Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:13 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
cc:	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make /proc/slabinfo 0400

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Matt Mackall wrote:

> On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 01:42 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Dan Rosenberg wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 22:58 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com> wrote:
> > > > > This patch makes these techniques more difficult by making it hard to
> > > > > know whether the last attacker-allocated object resides before a free or
> > > > > allocated object.  Especially with vulnerabilities that only allow one
> > > > > attempt at exploitation before recovery is needed to avoid trashing too
> > > > > much heap state and causing a crash, this could go a long way.  I'd
> > > > > still argue in favor of removing the ability to know how many objects
> > > > > are used in a given slab, since randomizing objects doesn't help if you
> > > > > know every object is allocated.
> > > > 
> > > > So if the attacker knows every object is allocated, how does that help
> > > > if we're randomizing the initial freelist?
> > > 
> > > If you know you've got a slab completely full of your objects, then it
> > > doesn't matter that they happened to be allocated in a random fashion -
> > > they're still all allocated, and by freeing one of them and
> > > reallocating, you'll still be next to your target.
> > > 
> > 
> > But still, if randomizing allocations makes life just a little harder for 
> > attackers in some scenarios, why not just do it?
> 
> Lemme guess, you work for the TSA?
> 
No. And now I actually feel slightly insulted.


> As far as I can tell neither of the patches under discussion do anything
> that couldn't be worked around by an exploit writer in the time it takes
> to write this email. And the second attacker, of course, will have even
> less trouble.
> 
> Putting trivial obstacles in the way of attackers accomplishes little
> beyond annoying users.
> 
If we annoy users I agree we shouldn't. If we don't annoy users (and don't 
impact performance in any relevant way) then even trivial obstacles that 
stop just a few exploits are worth it IMHO.


-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>            http://www.chaosbits.net/
Plain text mails only, please.
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html

--
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/