linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/refcount: Implement fast refcount

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: <58FF3273.2718.1C99E5A3@pageexec.freemail.hu>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:26:43 +0200
From:   "PaX Team" <pageexec@...email.hu>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/refcount: Implement fast refcount_t handling

On 25 Apr 2017 at 0:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 01:40:56PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > I think we're way off in the weeds here. The "cannot inc from 0" check
> > is about general sanity checks on refcounts.
> 
> I disagree, although sanity check are good too.

exactly, an attacker doesn't care how a premature free occurs due
to reaching a 0 refcount, afterwards it's memory corruption time for
both old and new references regardless.

> > However, what the refcount hardening protection is trying to do is
> > protect again the exploitable condition: overflow.
> 
> Sure..

underflow is also exploitable, it's just much harder to defend against
(there're no known practical solutions).

> > Inc-from-0 isn't an exploitable condition since in theory
> > the memory suddenly becomes correctly managed again.
> 
> It does not. It just got free'ed. Nothing will stop the free from
> happening (or already having happened).

now hold this thought...

> How is the below not useful fodder for an exploit? It might be a less
> common bug, and perhaps a bit more fiddly to make work, but afaict its
> still a full use-after-free and therefore useful.
> 
> ---
> 
> Thread-A                                        Thread-B
> 
> if(dec_and_test(&obj->ref)) { // true, ref==0
> 
>                                                 inc(&obj->ref) // ref: 0->1
> 
>         kfree(obj);
> }

... and tell me why an attacker would let Thread-B do that increment
(that you're trying to detect) *before* the underlying memory gets
reused and thus the 0 changed to something else? hint: he'll do everything
in his power to prevent that, either by winning the race or if there's
no race (no refcount users outside his control), he'll win every time.
IOW, checking for 0 is pointless and you kinda proved it yourself now.