linux-kernel - Re: Updated: [PATCH] hardening: add PROT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50721D16.9006.14F512C3@pageexec.freemail.hu>
Date:	Mon, 08 Oct 2012 02:23:50 +0200
From:	"PaX Team" <pageexec@...email.hu>
To:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...il.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>, spender@...ecurity.net
Subject: Re: Updated: [PATCH] hardening: add PROT_FINAL prot flag to mmap/mprotect

On 7 Oct 2012 at 9:43, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

> 2012/10/6 PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>:
> > sadly, this is not true at all, for multiple reasons:
> >
> .. snip ...
> >
> > cheers,
> >   PaX Team
> >
> 
> So can I summarize your position as that there is no merit at all in
> the ability to inhibit future permissions of existing mappings?

i believe i answered this in the previous mail already:

> there's certainly a point (i've been doing it for 12 years now), but to
> make an mprotect flag into an actual security feature, it had better pass
> simple tests, such as non-circumventability. any method relying on
> userland playing nice is already suspect of being the wrong way and right
> now i don't see how PROT_FINAL could be used for actual security.

so if PROT_FINAL wants to be useful, you'd have to present a case of
how it does something useful *while* an exploited userland cannot get
around it. in fact i think i already told you that presenting your own
use case in more detail (read: source code, policy, etc) would be a
great step in 'selling the idea'. the fact that you seem to be reluctant
to follow up on this leaves me somewhat uneasy as it may be the sign
of a proprietary vendor's trying to push some code into mainline that
nobody else has a clear idea how it'd benefit the rest of us. you see,
you're asking for a change in a system call, which is a very important
boundary for kernel developers as they'll have to maintain it indefinitely.
so the burden is on you to prove that either this is the only way to
implement a useful feature or at least it is the optimal way as opposed
to other approaches. i suggested you ways to both attack the initially
presented concept and also how it may be improved, but i got no answers
to them yet.

cheers,
  PaX Team

--
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/