linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 5/5] x86,perf: Only allow rdpmc if a perf

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]

Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:37:59 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Erik Bosman <ebn310@....vu.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] x86,perf: Only allow rdpmc if a perf_event is mapped

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 03:57:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> We currently allow any process to use rdpmc.  This significantly
>> weakens the protection offered by PR_TSC_DISABLED, and it could be
>> helpful to users attempting to exploit timing attacks.
>>
>> Since we can't enable access to individual counters, use a very
>> coarse heuristic to limit access to rdpmc: allow access only when
>> a perf_event is mmapped.  This protects seccomp sandboxes.
>>
>> There is plenty of room to further tighen these restrictions.  For
>> example, on x86, *all* perf_event mappings set cap_user_rdpmc.  This
>> should probably be changed to only apply to perf_events that are
>> accessible using rdpmc.
>
> So I suppose this patch is a little over engineered,

:)  I won't argue.

>
>> @@ -1852,10 +1865,26 @@ static ssize_t set_attr_rdpmc(struct device *cdev,
>>       if (x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc_broken)
>>               return -ENOTSUPP;
>>
>> +     mutex_lock(&rdpmc_enable_mutex);
>>       if (!!val != !!x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc) {
>> -             x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc = !!val;
>> -             on_each_cpu(change_rdpmc, (void *)val, 1);
>> +             if (val) {
>> +                     static_key_slow_inc(&rdpmc_enabled);
>> +                     on_each_cpu(refresh_pce, NULL, 1);
>> +                     smp_wmb();
>> +                     x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc = 1;
>> +             } else {
>> +                     /*
>> +                      * This direction can race against existing
>> +                      * rdpmc-capable mappings.  Try our best regardless.
>> +                      */
>> +                     x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc = 0;
>> +                     smp_wmb();
>> +                     static_key_slow_dec(&rdpmc_enabled);
>> +                     WARN_ON(static_key_true(&rdpmc_enabled));
>> +                     on_each_cpu(refresh_pce, NULL, 1);
>> +             }
>>       }
>> +     mutex_unlock(&rdpmc_enable_mutex);
>>
>>       return count;
>>  }
>
> why do you care about that rdpmc_enabled static key thing? Also you
> should not expose static key control to userspace like this, they can
> totally wreck the system. At the very least it should be
> static_key_slow_dec_deferred() -- gawd I hate the static_key API.

This particular control is only available to root, so I don't think it
matters too much.  I did it this way to avoid hitting an extra dcache
line on every switch_mm.

A nicer solution might be to track whether rdpmc is allowed for each
perf_event and to count the number that allow rdpmc.  That would cause
'echo 0 > rdpmc' to only work for new perf_events, but it fixes a
race.

Doing this will require passing more info to
arch_perf_update_userpage, I think.  Should I do that?  It'll probably
get a better result, but this patchset will get even longer and even
more overengineered.

--Andy

-- 
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/