linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap

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: <20151124164001.71844bcfb4d7a500cd25d9c6@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:40:01 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Daniel Cashman <dcashman@...roid.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	keescook@...omium.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, corbet@....net,
	dzickus@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, xypron.glpk@....de,
	jpoimboe@...hat.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
	n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com, aarcange@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	tglx@...utronix.de, rientjes@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, salyzyn@...roid.com, jeffv@...gle.com,
	nnk@...gle.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
	hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, hecmargi@....es, bp@...e.de,
	dcashman@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base
 ASLR.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:20:05 -0800 Daniel Cashman <dcashman@...roid.com> wrote:

> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> @@ -1568,6 +1568,28 @@ static struct ctl_table vm_table[] = {
>  		.mode		= 0644,
>  		.proc_handler	= proc_doulongvec_minmax,
>  	},
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS
> +	{
> +		.procname	= "mmap_rnd_bits",
> +		.data		= &mmap_rnd_bits,
> +		.maxlen		= sizeof(mmap_rnd_bits),
> +		.mode		= 0644,

Is there any harm in permitting the attacker to read these values?

And is there any benefit in permitting non-attackers to read them?

> +		.proc_handler	= proc_dointvec_minmax,
> +		.extra1		= &mmap_rnd_bits_min,
> +		.extra2		= &mmap_rnd_bits_max,
> +	},
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS
> +	{
> +		.procname	= "mmap_rnd_compat_bits",
> +		.data		= &mmap_rnd_compat_bits,
> +		.maxlen		= sizeof(mmap_rnd_compat_bits),
> +		.mode		= 0644,
> +		.proc_handler	= proc_dointvec_minmax,
> +		.extra1		= &mmap_rnd_compat_bits_min,
> +		.extra2		= &mmap_rnd_compat_bits_max,
> +	},
> +#endif
>
> ...
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS
> +int mmap_rnd_bits_min = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MIN;
> +int mmap_rnd_bits_max = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MAX;
> +int mmap_rnd_bits = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS;
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS
> +int mmap_rnd_compat_bits_min = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS_MIN;
> +int mmap_rnd_compat_bits_max = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS_MAX;
> +int mmap_rnd_compat_bits = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS;

These could be __read_mostly.

If one believes in such things.  One effect of __read_mostly is to
clump the write-often stuff into the same cachelines and I've never
been convinced that one outweighs the other...

--
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/