linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] mm: Hardened usercopy

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:	Tue, 19 Jul 2016 22:14:26 +0200
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] mm: Hardened usercopy

On 07/19/2016 09:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Christian Borntraeger
> <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
>> On 07/15/2016 11:44 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> +config HAVE_ARCH_LINEAR_KERNEL_MAPPING
>>> +     bool
>>> +     help
>>> +       An architecture should select this if it has a secondary linear
>>> +       mapping of the kernel text. This is used to verify that kernel
>>> +       text exposures are not visible under CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY.
>>
>> I have trouble parsing this. (What does secondary linear mapping mean?)
> 
> I likely need help clarifying this language...
> 
>> So let me give an example below
>>
>>> +
>> [...]
>>> +/* Is this address range in the kernel text area? */
>>> +static inline const char *check_kernel_text_object(const void *ptr,
>>> +                                                unsigned long n)
>>> +{
>>> +     unsigned long textlow = (unsigned long)_stext;
>>> +     unsigned long texthigh = (unsigned long)_etext;
>>> +
>>> +     if (overlaps(ptr, n, textlow, texthigh))
>>> +             return "<kernel text>";
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_LINEAR_KERNEL_MAPPING
>>> +     /* Check against linear mapping as well. */
>>> +     if (overlaps(ptr, n, (unsigned long)__va(__pa(textlow)),
>>> +                  (unsigned long)__va(__pa(texthigh))))
>>> +             return "<linear kernel text>";
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>> +     return NULL;
>>> +}
>>
>> s390 has an address space for user (primary address space from 0..4TB/8PB) and a separate
>> address space (home space from 0..4TB/8PB) for the kernel. In this home space the kernel
>> mapping is virtual containing the physical memory as well as vmalloc memory (creating aliases
>> into the physical one). The kernel text is mapped from _stext to _etext in this mapping.
>> So I assume this would qualify for HAVE_ARCH_LINEAR_KERNEL_MAPPING ?
> 
> If I understand your example, yes. In the home space you have two
> addresses that reference the kernel image?

No, there is only one address that points to the kernel.
As we have no kernel ASLR yet, and the kernel mapping is 
a 1:1 mapping from 0 to memory end and the kernel is only
from _stext to _etext. The vmalloc area contains modules
and vmalloc but not a 2nd kernel mapping.

But thanks for your example, now I understood. If we have only
one address 
>>> +     if (overlaps(ptr, n, textlow, texthigh))
>>> +             return "<kernel text>";

This is just enough.

So what about for the CONFIG text:

       An architecture should select this if the kernel mapping has a secondary
       linear mapping of the kernel text - in other words more than one virtual
       kernel address that points to the kernel image. This is used to verify 
       that kernel text exposures are not visible under CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY.


> I wonder if I can avoid the CONFIG entirely if I just did a
> __va(__pa(_stext)) != _stext test... would that break anyone?

Can this be resolved on all platforms at compile time?