[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904180811570.3174@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:14:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>, juergh@...il.com,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>, jsteckli@...zon.de,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>,
deepa.srinivasan@...cle.com, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid@...ehiking.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 03/13] mm: Add support for eXclusive Page Frame
Ownership (XPFO)
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:42 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > With SMEP, user space pages are always NX.
> >
> > We talk past each other. The user space page in the ring3 valid virtual
> > address space (non negative) is of course protected by SMEP.
> >
> > The attack utilizes the kernel linear mapping of the physical
> > memory. I.e. user space address 0x43210 has a kernel equivalent at
> > 0xfxxxxxxxxxx. So if the attack manages to trick the kernel to that valid
> > kernel address and that is mapped X --> game over. SMEP does not help
> > there.
>
> Oh, agreed.
>
> But that would simply be a kernel bug. We should only map kernel pages
> executable when we have kernel code in them, and we should certainly
> not allow those pages to be mapped writably in user space.
>
> That kind of "executable in kernel, writable in user" would be a
> horrendous and major bug.
>
> So i think it's a non-issue.
Pretty much.
> > From the top of my head I'd say this is a non issue as those kernel address
> > space mappings _should_ be NX, but we got bitten by _should_ in the past:)
>
> I do agree that bugs can happen, obviously, and we might have missed something.
>
> But in the context of XPFO, I would argue (*very* strongly) that the
> likelihood of the above kind of bug is absolutely *miniscule* compared
> to the likelihood that we'd have something wrong in the software
> implementation of XPFO.
>
> So if the argument is "we might have bugs in software", then I think
> that's an argument _against_ XPFO rather than for it.
No argument from my side. We better spend time to make sure that a bogus
kernel side X mapping is caught, like we catch other things.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists