linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 26/26] x86, pkeys: Documentation

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: <20151003081710.GA26206@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:17:10 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/26] x86, pkeys: Documentation

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:

> 
> * Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> wrote:
> 
> > > Another question, related to enumeration as well: I'm wondering whether 
> > > there's any way for the kernel to allocate a bit or two for its own purposes - 
> > > such as protecting crypto keys? Or is the facility fundamentally intended for 
> > > user-space use only?
> > 
> > No, that's not possible with the current setup.
> 
> Ok, then another question, have you considered the following usecase:

So, I'm wondering about the following additional usecase:

Right now the native x86 PTE format allows two protection related bits for 
user-space pages:

  _PAGE_BIT_RW:                   if 0 the page is read-only,  if 1 then it's read-write
  _PAGE_BIT_NX:                   if 0 the page is executable, if 1 then it's not executable

As discussed previously, pkeys allows 'true execute only (--x)' mappings.

Another possibility would be 'true write-only (-w-)' mappings.

This too could in theory be introduced 'transparently', via 'pure PROT_WRITE' 
mappings (i.e. no PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC bits set). Assuming the amount of user-space 
with implicit 'PROT_WRITE implies PROT_READ' assumptions is not unmanageble for a 
distro willing to try this.

Usage of this would be more limited than of pure PROT_EXEC mappings, but it's a 
nonzero set:

 - Write-only log buffers that are normally mmap()-ed from a file.

 - Write-only write() IO buffers that are only accessed via write().
   (kernel-space accesses ignore pkey values.)

   glibc's buffered IO might possibly make use of this, for write-only
   fopen()ed files.

 - Language runtimes could improve their security by eliminating W+X mappings of 
   JIT-ed code, instead they could use two alias mappings: one alias is a 
   true-exec (--x) mapping, the other (separately mapped, separately randomized)
   mapping is a true write-only (--x) mapping for generated code.

In addition to the security advantage, another advantage would be increased 
robustness: no accidental corruption of IO (or JIT) buffers via read-only 
codepaths.

Another advantage would be that it would utilize pkeys without having to teach 
applications to use new system calls.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/