linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add 32 bit VDSO time function support

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: <CALCETrUGgwyf-ya4=AMnNhOohWJSH-Q0OOReourqZXxTnEP0_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:08:27 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, Martin.Runge@...de-schwarz.com,
	Andreas.Brief@...de-schwarz.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add 32 bit VDSO time function support

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 01/30/2014 09:57 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> By definition there aren't any broken users of the new functions,
>> because there aren't any users at all.  So... should we start
>> randomizing this thing from the beginning?
>>
>
> The vdso already exists.  It isn't new.  Randomizing it might be a good
> idea, though; it already is randomized on 64 bits.
>
>> Also, since the VVAR page has a real vma, should something be done to
>> prevent mprotect or ptrace from COWing it?  Users will be rather
>> surprised if it suddenly stops updating.
>
> What happens currently on 64 bits?  I think we just take the attitude
> that "don't do that, then", and it hasn't seemed to be a problem.

On 64 bits, the vvar page is not part of the vdso vma -- it lives in
the fixmap.  So mprotect will return -EINVAL, I think.

With IA32 emulation, the vvar page has to live in the user address
space range (since there is no user-addressable kernel space), so it
seems more likely that user code will at least try to poke at it.

>
>> Finally, this might be the time to kill off the userspace mapping of
>> the HPET.  I suspect that there are few if any machines for which the
>> HPET is fast enough that avoiding a syscall matters at all.  (On my
>> box at work, reading the HPET takes ~500 nanoseconds.  I can do a lot
>> of syscalls in that amount of time.)
>
> I think this can be independent of extending the current 64-bit
> functionality to 32 bits.  It is a valid question, though.

My thinking is that if we do it now then there will never be a caller
of vclock_gettime that can't deal with it being randomized.
Admittedly, this isn't too likely regardless.

--Andy

>
>         -hpa
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/