linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCHv2 29/29] mm, x86: introduce RLIMIT

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, 11 Jan 2017 21:37:50 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCHv2 29/29] mm, x86: introduce RLIMIT_VADDR

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:09:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 12:49:44PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 01/05/2017 12:14 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this.  Do other rlimit changes cause
> >> >> silent data corruption?  I'm pretty sure doing this to MPX would.
> >> >>
> >> > What actually goes wrong in this case?  That is, what combination of
> >> > MPX setup of subsequent allocations will cause a problem, and is the
> >> > problem worse than just a segfault?  IMO it would be really nice to
> >> > keep the messy case confined to MPX.
> >>
> >> The MPX bounds tables are indexed by virtual address.  They need to grow
> >> if the virtual address space grows.   There's an MSR that controls
> >> whether we use the 48-bit or 57-bit layout.  It basically decides
> >> whether we need a 2GB (48-bit) or 1TB (57-bit) bounds directory.
> >>
> >> The question is what we do with legacy MPX applications.  We obviously
> >> can't let them just allocate a 2GB table and then go let the hardware
> >> pretend it's 1TB in size.  We also can't hand the hardware using a 2GB
> >> table an address >48-bits.
> >>
> >> Ideally, I'd like to make sure that legacy MPX can't be enabled if this
> >> RLIMIT is set over 48-bits (really 47).  I'd also like to make sure that
> >> legacy MPX is active, that the RLIMIT can't be raised because all hell
> >> will break loose when the new addresses show up.
> >
> > I think we can do this. See the patch below.
> >
> > Basically, we refuse to enable MPX and issue warning in dmesg if there's
> > anything mapped above 47-bits. Once MPX is enabled, mmap_max_addr() cannot
> > be higher than 47-bits too.
> >
> > Function call from mmap_max_addr() is unfortunate, but I don't see a
> > way around.
> 
> How about preventing the max addr from being changed to too high a
> value while MPX is on instead of overriding the set value?  This would
> have the added benefit that it would prevent silent failures where you
> think you've enabled large addresses but MPX is also on and mmap
> refuses to return large addresses.

Setting rlimit high doesn't mean that you necessary will get access to
full address space, even without MPX in picture. TASK_SIZE limits the
available address space too.

I think it's consistent with other resources in rlimit: setting RLIMIT_RSS
to unlimited doesn't really means you are not subject to other resource
management.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov