linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] bug: Provide toggle for BUG on data corruption

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:	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:09:56 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] bug: Provide toggle for BUG on data corruption

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 05:09:53PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 02:42:28PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 02:11:04PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> >> The kernel checks for several cases of data structure corruption under
> >> >> either normal runtime, or under various CONFIG_DEBUG_* settings. When
> >> >> corruption is detected, some systems may want to BUG() immediately instead
> >> >> of letting the corruption continue. Many of these manipulation primitives
> >> >> can be used by security flaws to gain arbitrary memory write control. This
> >> >> provides CONFIG_BUG_ON_CORRUPTION to control newly added BUG() locations.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is inspired by similar hardening in PaX and Grsecurity, and by
> >> >> Stephen Boyd in MSM kernels.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> >> >
> >> > OK, I will bite...  Why both the WARN() and the BUG_ON()?
> >>
> >> Mostly because not every case of BUG(CORRUPTED_DATA_STRUCTURE) is
> >> cleanly paired with a WARN (see the workqueue addition that wants to
> >> dump locks too). I could rearrange things a bit, though, and create
> >> something like:
> >>
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_BUG_ON_CORRUPTION
> >> # define CORRUPTED(format...) { \
> >>     printk(KERN_ERR format); \
> >>     BUG(); \
> >> }
> >> #else
> >> # define CORRUPTED(format...) WARN(1, format)
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > First let me see if I understand the rationale...  The idea is to allow
> > those in security-irrelevant environments, such as test systems, to
> > have the old "complain but soldier on" semantics, while security-conscious
> > systems just panic, thereby hopefully converting a more dangerous form
> > of attack into a denial-of-service attack.
> 
> Right, we don't want to wholesale upgrade all WARNs to BUGs. Just any
> security-sensitive conditionals. And based on Laura's feedback, this
> is really just about CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST now. We'll likely find some
> more to add this to, but for the moment, we'll focus on list.
> 
> Here are the rationales as I see it:
> 
> - if you've enabled CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST
>   - you want to get a report of the corruption
>   - you want the kernel to _not operate on the structure_ (this went
> missing when s/BUG/WARN/)
> - if you've enabled CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION
>   - everything from CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST
>   - you want the offending process to go away (i.e. BUG instead of WARN)
>   - you may want the entire system to dump if you've set the
> panic_on_oops sysctl (i.e. BUG)

OK, this looks good to me.

Just to be clear, if you've enabled neither CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST nor
CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION, then you get better performance, but are
taking responsibility for using some other means of shielding your system
from attack, correct?  (I believe that we do need to give the user this
choice, just checking your intent.)

> > An alternative approach would be to make WARN() panic on systems built
> > with CONFIG_BUG_ON_CORRUPTION, but we might instead want to choose which
> > warnings are fatal on security-conscious systems.
> >
> > Or am I missing the point?
> >
> > At a more detailed level, one could argue for something like this:
> >
> > #define CORRUPTED(format...) \
> > do { \
> >         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BUG_ON_CORRUPTION)) { \
> >                 printk(KERN_ERR format); \
> >                 BUG(); \
> >         } else { \
> >                 WARN(1, format); \
> >         } \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > Some might prefer #ifdef to IS_ENABLED(), but the bare {} needs to
> > be do-while in any case.
> 
> Yup, this is almost exactly what I've got in the v2. I wanted to
> enforce a control-flow side-effect, though, so I've included a
> non-optional "return false" as well.

Sounds good!  And yes, pulling the condition in makes a lot of sense
to me as well.  Looking forward to seeing v3.

							Thanx, Paul