linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 07/17] arm64: add basic pointer authentication support

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: <20181019164927.GO2401@uranus.lan>
Date:   Fri, 19 Oct 2018 19:49:27 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        Jacob Bramley <jacob.bramley@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Adam Wallis <awallis@...eaurora.org>,
        "Suzuki K . Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@....com>,
        Amit Kachhap <Amit.Kachhap@....com>,
        Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrey Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/17] arm64: add basic pointer authentication support

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:24:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> 
> FWIW: I think we should be entertaining a prctl() interface to use a new
> key on a per-thread basis. Obviously, this would need to be used with care
> (e.g. you'd fork(); use the prctl() and then you'd better not return from
> the calling function!).
> 
> Assuming we want this (Kees -- I was under the impression that everything in
> Android would end up with the same key otherwise?), then the question is
> do we want:
> 
>   - prctl() get/set operations for the key, or
>   - prctl() set_random_key operation, or
>   - both of the above?
> 
> Part of the answer to that may lie in the requirements of CRIU, where I
> strongly suspect they need explicit get/set operations, although these
> could be gated on CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=y.

Indeed. Without get/set I think we won't be able to restore programs.