[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a8zgu8an.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:16:48 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, tytso@....edu,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] fs proc: make pagemap a privileged interface
Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> writes:
> On 03/12/2015 03:35 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:43:21 -0700 Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> wrote:
>>> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> Physical addresses are sensitive information. There are
>>> existing, known exploits that are made easier if physical
>>> information is available. Here is one example:
>>>
>>> http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~vpk/papers/ret2dir.sec14.pdf
>> Do we really need to disable pagemap entirely? What happens if we just
>> obscure the addresses (ie: zero them)?
>
> I think we have 3 basic options:
>
> 1. Disable it entirely (-EPERM or whatever). Apps using it break
> quickly and fairly obviously (diagnosable with an strace)
> 2. Zero it, or return some nonsensical thing for the physical address
> portion, but maintain exporting the PTE flags. Apps only caring
> about PTE flags work, but anything trying to do lookups in
> /proc/kpageflags break. If we zero it, apps pay get confused
> thinking they have the _actual_ pfn=0.
> 3. Scramble it in some way obscuring the physical address. Unscramble
> it upon access to /proc/kpageflags.
>
> I think you're suggesting (2). Doesn't that risk silently breaking
> apps?
I think 3 where the scramble is something like AES crypto is likely to
scramble this well and still protect us from plain text attacks.
>>> pagemap is also the kind of feature that could be used to escalate
>>> privileged from root in to the kernel. It probably needs to be
>>> protected in the same way that /dev/mem or module loading is in
>>> cases where the kernel needs to be protected from root, thus the
>>> choice to use CAP_SYS_RAWIO.
>>
>> Confused. If you have root, you can do mount -o notparanoid.
>
> Good point. I guess it doesn't protect us much here unless we also
> restrict the ability to remount.
And the ability to unmount...
A write-once sysctl or a boot time only parameter is much more likely to
be useful in the scenario where you are concerned about root.
Eric
--
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