linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] x86: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND

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: <566F1154.7030703@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:58:28 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Daniel Cashman <dcashman@...roid.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux@....linux.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	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,
	x86@...nel.org, hecmargi@....es, bp@...e.de, dcashman@...gle.com,
	arnd@...db.de, jonathanh@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] x86: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS.

On 12/11/15 09:52, Daniel Cashman wrote:
> From: dcashman <dcashman@...gle.com>
> 
> x86: arch_mmap_rnd() uses hard-coded values, 8 for 32-bit and 28 for
> 64-bit, to generate the random offset for the mmap base address.
> This value represents a compromise between increased ASLR
> effectiveness and avoiding address-space fragmentation. Replace it
> with a Kconfig option, which is sensibly bounded, so that platform
> developers may choose where to place this compromise. Keep default
> values as new minimums.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Cashman <dcashman@...roid.com>

OK, this is around the time when I make a lecture about the danger of
expecting the compiler to make certain transformations:

> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c b/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c
> index 844b06d..647fecf 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -69,14 +69,14 @@ unsigned long arch_mmap_rnd(void)
>  {
>  	unsigned long rnd;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 *  8 bits of randomness in 32bit mmaps, 20 address space bits
> -	 * 28 bits of randomness in 64bit mmaps, 40 address space bits
> -	 */
>  	if (mmap_is_ia32())
> -		rnd = (unsigned long)get_random_int() % (1<<8);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> +		rnd = (unsigned long)get_random_int() % (1 << mmap_rnd_compat_bits);
> +#else
> +		rnd = (unsigned long)get_random_int() % (1 << mmap_rnd_bits);
> +#endif
>  	else
> -		rnd = (unsigned long)get_random_int() % (1<<28);
> +		rnd = (unsigned long)get_random_int() % (1 << mmap_rnd_bits);
>  
>  	return rnd << PAGE_SHIFT;
>  }
> 

Now, you and I know that both variants can be implemented with a simple
AND, but I have a strong suspicion that once this is turned into a
variable, this will in fact be changed from an AND to a divide.

So I'd prefer to use the
"get_random_int() & ((1UL << mmap_rnd_bits) - 1)" construct instead.

	-hpa

--
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/