linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] x86/arch_prctl: add ARCH_GET_NOPTI and ARCH_SET

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: <20180109143653.GA12976@1wt.eu>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jan 2018 15:36:53 +0100
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] x86/arch_prctl: add ARCH_GET_NOPTI and
 ARCH_SET_NOPTI to enable/disable PTI

Hi Boris!

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:17:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:56:16PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > This allows to report the current state of the PTI protection and to
> > enable or disable it for the current process. The state change is only
> > allowed if the mm is not shared (no threads have been created yet).
> > 
> > Setting the flag to disable the protection is subject to CAP_SYS_RAWIO.
> > However it is possible to re-enable the protection without this privilege.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> > Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > 
> > v2:
> >   - use {set,clear}_thread_flag() as recommended by Peter
> >   - use task->mm->context.pti_disable instead of task flag
> >   - check for mm_users == 1
> >   - check for CAP_SYS_RAWIO only when setting, not clearing
> >   - make the code depend on CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h |  3 +++
> >  arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c      | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h
> > index 5a6aac9..1f1b5bc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h
> > @@ -10,6 +10,9 @@
> >  #define ARCH_GET_CPUID		0x1011
> >  #define ARCH_SET_CPUID		0x1012
> >  
> > +#define ARCH_GET_NOPTI		0x1021
> > +#define ARCH_SET_NOPTI		0x1022
> > +
> >  #define ARCH_MAP_VDSO_X32	0x2001
> >  #define ARCH_MAP_VDSO_32	0x2002
> >  #define ARCH_MAP_VDSO_64	0x2003
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > index c754662..9516310 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > @@ -654,7 +654,22 @@ long do_arch_prctl_64(struct task_struct *task, int option, unsigned long arg2)
> >  		ret = put_user(base, (unsigned long __user *)arg2);
> >  		break;
> >  	}
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION
> 
> Actually, I meant to add a new CONFIG item only for this feature which
> depends on CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION. So that people can disable the
> per-mm thing when they don't want it.

I see and am not particularly against this, but what use case do you
have in mind precisely ? I doubt it's just saving a few tens of bytes,
so probably you're more concerned about the potential risks this opens ?
But given we only allow this for CAP_SYS_RAWIO and these ones already
have access to /dev/mem and many other things, don't you think there
are much easier ways to dump kernel memory in this case than trying to
inject some meltdown code into the victim process ? Or maybe you have
other cases in mind that I'm not seeing.

Thanks,
willy