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:	Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:40:32 -0800
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>
Cc:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] arm: Update all mm structures with section adjustments

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org> wrote:
>> Currently, when updating section permissions to mark areas RO
>> or NX, the only mm updated is current->mm. This is working off
>> the assumption that there are no additional mm structures at
>> the time. This may not always hold true. (Example: calling
>> modprobe early will trigger a fork/exec). Ensure all mm structres
>> get updated with the new section information.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>
>
> This looks right to me. :)
>
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> Russell, does this work for you?

Did this end up in the patch tracker? (I just sent a patch that'll
collide with this... I'm happy to do the fix up.)

-Kees

>
> -Kees
>
>> ---
>> I don't think we can get away from updating the sections if the initmem is
>> going to be freed back to the buddy allocator. I think this should cover
>> everything based on my understanding but my knowledge may be incomplete.
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/mm/init.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>  1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
>> index 8a63b4c..7f8cd1b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/memblock.h>
>>  #include <linux/dma-contiguous.h>
>>  #include <linux/sizes.h>
>> +#include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>>
>>  #include <asm/cp15.h>
>>  #include <asm/mach-types.h>
>> @@ -627,12 +628,10 @@ static struct section_perm ro_perms[] = {
>>   * safe to be called with preemption disabled, as under stop_machine().
>>   */
>>  static inline void section_update(unsigned long addr, pmdval_t mask,
>> -                                 pmdval_t prot)
>> +                                 pmdval_t prot, struct mm_struct *mm)
>>  {
>> -       struct mm_struct *mm;
>>         pmd_t *pmd;
>>
>> -       mm = current->active_mm;
>>         pmd = pmd_offset(pud_offset(pgd_offset(mm, addr), addr), addr);
>>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
>> @@ -656,49 +655,82 @@ static inline bool arch_has_strict_perms(void)
>>         return !!(get_cr() & CR_XP);
>>  }
>>
>> -#define set_section_perms(perms, field)        {                               \
>> -       size_t i;                                                       \
>> -       unsigned long addr;                                             \
>> -                                                                       \
>> -       if (!arch_has_strict_perms())                                   \
>> -               return;                                                 \
>> -                                                                       \
>> -       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(perms); i++) {                       \
>> -               if (!IS_ALIGNED(perms[i].start, SECTION_SIZE) ||        \
>> -                   !IS_ALIGNED(perms[i].end, SECTION_SIZE)) {          \
>> -                       pr_err("BUG: section %lx-%lx not aligned to %lx\n", \
>> -                               perms[i].start, perms[i].end,           \
>> -                               SECTION_SIZE);                          \
>> -                       continue;                                       \
>> -               }                                                       \
>> -                                                                       \
>> -               for (addr = perms[i].start;                             \
>> -                    addr < perms[i].end;                               \
>> -                    addr += SECTION_SIZE)                              \
>> -                       section_update(addr, perms[i].mask,             \
>> -                                      perms[i].field);                 \
>> -       }                                                               \
>> +void set_section_perms(struct section_perm *perms, int n, bool set,
>> +                       struct mm_struct *mm)
>> +{
>> +       size_t i;
>> +       unsigned long addr;
>> +
>> +       if (!arch_has_strict_perms())
>> +               return;
>> +
>> +       for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>> +               if (!IS_ALIGNED(perms[i].start, SECTION_SIZE) ||
>> +                   !IS_ALIGNED(perms[i].end, SECTION_SIZE)) {
>> +                       pr_err("BUG: section %lx-%lx not aligned to %lx\n",
>> +                               perms[i].start, perms[i].end,
>> +                               SECTION_SIZE);
>> +                       continue;
>> +               }
>> +
>> +               for (addr = perms[i].start;
>> +                    addr < perms[i].end;
>> +                    addr += SECTION_SIZE)
>> +                       section_update(addr, perms[i].mask,
>> +                               set ? perms[i].prot : perms[i].clear, mm);
>> +       }
>> +
>>  }
>>
>> -static inline void fix_kernmem_perms(void)
>> +static void update_sections_early(struct section_perm perms[], int n)
>>  {
>> -       set_section_perms(nx_perms, prot);
>> +       struct task_struct *t, *s;
>> +
>> +       read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>> +       for_each_process(t) {
>> +               if (t->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
>> +                       continue;
>> +               for_each_thread(t, s)
>> +                       set_section_perms(perms, n, true, s->mm);
>> +       }
>> +       read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>> +       set_section_perms(perms, n, true, current->active_mm);
>> +       set_section_perms(perms, n, true, &init_mm);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int __fix_kernmem_perms(void *unused)
>> +{
>> +       update_sections_early(nx_perms, ARRAY_SIZE(nx_perms));
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void fix_kernmem_perms(void)
>> +{
>> +       stop_machine(__fix_kernmem_perms, NULL, NULL);
>>  }
>>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA
>> +int __mark_rodata_ro(void *unused)
>> +{
>> +       update_sections_early(ro_perms, ARRAY_SIZE(ro_perms));
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  void mark_rodata_ro(void)
>>  {
>> -       set_section_perms(ro_perms, prot);
>> +       stop_machine(__mark_rodata_ro, NULL, NULL);
>>  }
>>
>>  void set_kernel_text_rw(void)
>>  {
>> -       set_section_perms(ro_perms, clear);
>> +       set_section_perms(ro_perms, ARRAY_SIZE(ro_perms), false,
>> +                               current->active_mm);
>>  }
>>
>>  void set_kernel_text_ro(void)
>>  {
>> -       set_section_perms(ro_perms, prot);
>> +       set_section_perms(ro_perms, ARRAY_SIZE(ro_perms), true,
>> +                               current->active_mm);
>>  }
>>  #endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA */
>>
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS Security



-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security
--
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