linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] uprobes: kill xol vma

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: <1322510277.2921.164.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:57:57 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] uprobes: kill xol vma

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 20:06 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> On top of this series, not for inclusion yet, just to explain what
> I mean. May be someone can test it ;)
> 
> This series kills xol_vma. Instead we use the per_cpu-like xol slots.
> 
> This is much more simple and efficient. And this of course solves
> many problems we currently have with xol_vma.
> 
> For example, we simply can not trust it. We do not know what actually
> we are going to execute in UTASK_SSTEP mode. An application can unmap
> this area and then do mmap(PROT_EXEC|PROT_WRITE, MAP_FIXED) to fool
> uprobes.
> 
> The only disadvantage is that this adds a bit more arch-dependant
> code.
> 
> The main question, can this work? I know very little in this area.
> And I am not sure if this can be ported to other architectures.

I very much like this approach! I think the provided implementation
might have some issues, but yeah, using fixmaps and a __switch_to_xtra
hook to provide per task slots seems very nice indeed!
--
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/