Message-ID: <1305852966.3005.19.camel@dan>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 20:56:06 -0400
From:	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com,
	kees.cook@...onical.com, davem@...emloft.net, eranian@...gle.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, adobriyan@...il.com,
	penberg@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf: bogus correlation of kernel symbols


> > > > Unless we were somehow introduced randomness into where we unpack the kernel 
> > > > each boot, and using System.map as a table of offsets instead of absolute 
> > > > addresses.
> > > 
> > > Correct. This security feature is IMO only solving a tiny fraction of the 
> > > problem and is thus in fact hindering the implementation of a *real* layer
> > > of protection of kernel absolute addresses:
> > > 
> > > The x86 kernel is relocatable, so slightly randomizing the position of the 
> > > kernel would be feasible with no overhead on the vast majority of exising 
> > > distro installs, with just an updated kernel.
> > > 
> > > When exposing randomized RIPs to user-space we could recalculate all RIPs back 
> > > to the 0xffffffff80000000 base, so oopses would have the usual non-randomized 
> > > form:
> > > 
> > > [   32.946003] IP: [<ffffffff80222521>] get_cur_val+0xcc/0x106
> > > [   32.946003] PGD 0 
> > > [   32.946003] Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> > > [   32.946003] last sysfs file: 
> > > [   32.946003] CPU 1 
> > > [   32.946003] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Tainted: G        W  2.6.29-rc1-00190-g37a76bd #10
> > > [   32.946003] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff80222521>]  [<ffffffff80222521>] get_cur_val+0xcc/0x106
> > > [   32.946003] RSP: 0018:ffff88003f977b80  EFLAGS: 00010202
> > > [   32.946003] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ffff8800029c8c80 RCX: 0000000000000008
> > > [   32.946003] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff80ce0100 RDI: 0000000000000000
> > > [   32.946003] RBP: ffff88003f977bd0 R08: 0000000000000004 R09: 0000000000000040
> > > [   32.946003] R10: 0000000000000060 R11: 0000000081363fa8 R12: ffffffff81c4f0e0
> > > [   32.946003] R13: ffffffff80ce0100 R14: ffff88003c888a00 R15: 0000000000000000
> > > [   32.946003] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88003f802c00(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > [   32.946003] CS:  0010 DS: 0018 ES: 0018 CR0: 000000008005003b
> > > [   32.946003] CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 0000000000201000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
> > > [   32.946003] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > > [   32.946003] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > > [   32.946003] Process swapper (pid: 1, threadinfo ffff88003f976000, task ffff88003f978000)
> > > [   32.946003] Stack:
> > > 
> > > Likewise, /proc/kallsyms could pass these addresses as well and the perf 
> > > call-chain code and other places that sample RIPs could easily convert them to 
> > > the constant address as well.
> > > 
> > > We'd still leak some information like the relative position of symbols from 
> > > each other (this can be useful to certain classes of attacks), but we could 
> > > pretty effectively hide the absolute location of the kernel - which is the most 
> > > valuable piece of information -.
> > > 
> > > Then the random base has to be protected: i.e. all information leaks of raw 
> > > kernel RIPs have to be plugged. The nice thing is that this will happen as 
> > > *bugfixes*: randomized RIPs will not be useful for anything, so any 
> > > tools/people who rely on them will notice it immediately.
> > > 
> > > I think *that* would be a maintainable and complete security feature to truly 
> > > hide the exact location of the kernel image. kptr_restrict is not.
> > > 
> > 
> > I want this feature, as I think it is far more useful and important. This has 
> > been mentioned before, but no one has stepped up to actually do it.  
> > Unfortunately, I lack the necessary knowledge of the relevant code to do it 
> > properly.  What's the best way to make this feature a reality?
> 
> Agreed, it would be a very useful feature.
> 
> I'd suggest to implement it along the lines of:
> 
>  - First check whether grsecurity or PAX has this implemented already via the
>    relocation facility - they are pretty good at being paranoid so i'd be 
>    surprised if they didnt think of this already! :-)
> 
>  - If not then have a look at CONFIG_RELOCATABLE and to relocate the kernel 
>    binary intentionally via a hardcoded parameter. Just see whether you can do 
>    it and whether it works as you expect it. Check /proc/kallsyms changing 
>    after your patch. Enjoy the kernel still working ;-)
> 
>  - Then promote it to a boot parameter - this way you'll be able to tell 
>    whether there's any hidden build-time assumptions about relocation position. 
>    (there really shouldnt be any given that kexec works just fine - but i'd 
>     suggest this step just in case.)
> 
>  - Then promote that hack to be a randomized parameter. Marvel at a different,
>    randomized /proc/kallsyms output at every bootup and enjoy the still working 
>    kernel!
> 
>  - Then look at all RIP outputs (thanks to your prior efforts they are now 
>    mostly concentrated in the vprints code!) and reverse apply the random 
>    offset before it's exported into user-space. wchan, etc. Marvel at the 
>    constant /proc/kallsyms output, fully knowing that the *real* addresses
>    are randomized.
> 
>  - Please do not forget to transfer perf RIPs and callchains and marvel at the
>    well working 'perf top' output.
> 
> At that point the feature will be highly useful already IMO. Remaining work 
> will be to think through and close down all remaining avenues of RIP leakage. 
> 
> At this point kptr_restrict will be a lot less relevant - the symbols will 
> expose offsets (so it's not totally unhelpful to attackers) but not the real 
> absolute addresses.
> 
> Unless i'm missing some particularly difficult roadblock, which is possible.
> 
> If you try this then please keep us posted at every step above, even if your 
> patches are not fully working and useful yet. Maybe some other 
> details/ideas/suggestions will arise at that point.
> 

I was able to boot a relocatable kernel with the decompression location
at a hard-coded offset without too much trouble.  Everything seems to
work fine.

However, it occurred to me that even if the kernel image's base address
were randomized at boot, assuming a binary distro kernel it would still
be possible to sidt the address of the IDT and calculate symbol offsets
relative to that.  Any thoughts on how to avoid that?  Seems difficult.
Another hurdle will be to find a reasonable source of entropy that early
in the boot process.

-Dan


> 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