linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Add support for eXclusive Page Frame Ownership

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, 12 Sep 2017 15:07:29 +0800
From:   Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Marco Benatto <marco.antonio.780@...il.com>,
        Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Add support for eXclusive Page Frame Ownership

Hi Tycho,

On 2017/9/11 23:02, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Hi Yisheng,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 06:34:45PM +0800, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>> Hi Tycho ,
>>
>> On 2017/9/8 1:35, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Here is v6 of the XPFO set; see v5 discussion here:
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/9/803
>>>
>>> Changelogs are in the individual patch notes, but the highlights are:
>>> * add primitives for ensuring memory areas are mapped (although these are quite
>>>   ugly, using stack allocation; I'm open to better suggestions)
>>> * instead of not flushing caches, re-map pages using the above
>>> * TLB flushing is much more correct (i.e. we're always flushing everything
>>>   everywhere). I suspect we may be able to back this off in some cases, but I'm
>>>   still trying to collect performance numbers to prove this is worth doing.
>>>
>>> I have no TODOs left for this set myself, other than fixing whatever review
>>> feedback people have. Thoughts and testing welcome!
>>
>> According to the paper of Vasileios P. Kemerlis et al, the mainline kernel
>> will not set the Pro. of physmap(direct map area) to RW(X), so do we really
>> need XPFO to protect from ret2dir attack?
> 
> I guess you're talking about section 4.3? 
Yes

> They mention that that x86
> only gets rw, but that aarch64 is rwx still.
IIRC, the in kernel of v4.13 the aarch64 is not rwx, I will check it.

> 
> But in either case this still provides access protection, similar to
> SMAP. Also, if I understand things correctly the protections are
> unmanaged, so a page that had the +x bit set at some point, it could
> be used for ret2dir.
So you means that the Pro. of direct map area maybe changed to +x, then ret2dir attack can use it?

Thanks
Yisheng Xie