linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 3/6] x86/mmap: properly account for stack randomization in mmap

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:   Sat, 03 Jun 2017 08:16:56 -0400
From:   Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>, mhocko@...e.de,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 3/6] x86/mmap: properly account for
 stack randomization in mmap_base

On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 21:46 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:20 AM,  <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> > From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> > 
> > When RLIMIT_STACK is, for example, 256MB, the current code results
> > in
> > a gap between the top of the task and mmap_base of 256MB, failing to
> > take into account the amount by which the stack address was
> > randomized.
> > In other words, the stack gets less than RLIMIT_STACK space.
> 
> Is this entirely accurate? The top of the task would be task_size, but
> this code is using task_size / 6 * 5 as the bottom of stack / top of
> mmap gap_max. Is there a reason for this?

MIN_GAP / MAX_GAP are only the boundaries that this gap is clamped to.

If it's not smaller than MIN_GAP, MIN_GAP isn't used. If it's not larger
than MAX_GAP, MAX_GAP isn't used. The stack randomization is currently
only taken into account for MIN_GAP. This only fixes that bug by always
taking it into account. It's not a subjective design change.

The MAX_GAP value is 5/6 of the address space which is overly large but
that's a separate bug.