linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 3/4] x86, boot: Implement ASLR for kernel memory sections (x86

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: <B3357B98-5869-4E91-AE1D-20DFB8654E7F@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:15:34 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
CC:	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Seth Jennings <sjennings@...iantweb.net>,
	Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
	Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@...il.com>,
	Alexander Popov <alpopov@...ecurity.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
	Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 3/4] x86, boot: Implement ASLR for kernel memory sections (x86_64)

On April 21, 2016 8:52:01 AM PDT, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:46 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On April 21, 2016 6:30:24 AM PDT, Boris Ostrovsky
><boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On 04/15/2016 06:03 PM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>>>> +void __init kernel_randomize_memory(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    size_t i;
>>>> +    unsigned long addr = memory_rand_start;
>>>> +    unsigned long padding, rand, mem_tb;
>>>> +    struct rnd_state rnd_st;
>>>> +    unsigned long remain_padding = memory_rand_end -
>memory_rand_start;
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (!kaslr_enabled())
>>>> +            return;
>>>> +
>>>> +    /* Take the additional space when Xen is not active. */
>>>> +    if (!xen_domain())
>>>> +            page_offset_base -= __XEN_SPACE;
>>>
>>>This should be !xen_pv_domain(). Xen HVM guests are no different from
>>>bare metal as far as address ranges are concerned. (Technically it's
>>>probably !xen_pv_domain() && !xen_pvh_domain() but we can ignore PVH
>>>for
>>>now since it is being replaced by an HVM-type guest)
>>>
>>>Having said that, I am not sure I understand why page_offset_base is
>>>shifted. I thought 0xffff800000000000 - 0xffff87ffffffffff is not
>>>supposed to be used by anyone, whether we are running under a
>>>hypervisor
>>>or not.
>>>
>>>-boris
>>
>> That range is reserved for the hypervisor use.
>
>I know, I thought I could use it if no hypervisor was used but might
>introduce problems in the future so I will remove it for the next
>iteration.
>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and
>formatting.

At least in theory the hypervisor can use it even though no PV architecture is advertised to the kernel.  One kind of would hope none would.

I think this range is also used by the kernel pointer checking thing, as it *has* to live right next to the canonical boundary.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.