linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] madvise MADV

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: <ab7a25bf-3321-77c8-9bc3-28a223a14032@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 14:27:21 -0400
From:   Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Anthony Yznaga <anthony.yznaga@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        arnd@...db.de, ebiederm@...ssion.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        gerg@...ux-m68k.org, ktkhai@...tuozzo.com,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        esyr@...hat.com, jgg@...pe.ca, christian@...lner.me,
        areber@...hat.com, cyphar@...har.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] madvise MADV_DOEXEC

On 7/30/2020 1:49 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:35:51PM -0400, Steven Sistare wrote:
>> mshare + VA reservation is another possible solution.
>>
>> Or MADV_DOEXEC alone, which is ready now.  I hope we can get back to reviewing that.
> 
> We are.  This is the part of the review process where we explore other
> solutions to the problem.
> 
>>>> Also, we need to support updating legacy processes that already created anon segments.
>>>> We inject code that calls MADV_DOEXEC for such segments.
>>>
>>> Yes, I was assuming you'd inject code that called mshare().
>>
>> OK, mshare works on existing memory and builds a new vma.
> 
> Actually, reparents an existing VMA, and reuses the existing page tables.
> 
>>> Actually, since you're injecting code, why do you need the kernel to
>>> be involved?  You can mmap the new executable and any libraries it depends
>>> upon, set up a new stack and jump to the main() entry point, all without
>>> calling exec().  I appreciate it'd be a fair amount of code, but it'd all
>>> be in userspace and you can probably steal / reuse code from ld.so (I'm
>>> not familiar with the details of how setting up an executable is done).
>>
>> Duplicating all the work that the kernel and loader do to exec a process would
>> be error prone, require ongoing maintenance, and be redundant.  Better to define 
>> a small kernel extension and leave exec to the kernel.
> 
> Either this is a one-off kind of thing, in which case it doesn't need
> ongoing maintenance, or it's something with broad applicability, in
> which case it can live as its own userspace project.  It could even
> start off life as part of qemu and then fork into its own project.

exec will be enhanced over time in the kernel.  A separate user space implementation
would need to track that.

Reimplementing exec in userland would be a big gross mess.  Not a good solution when
we have simple and concise ways of solving the problem.

> The idea of tagging an ELF executable to say "I can cope with having
> chunks of my address space provided to me by my executor" is ... odd.

I don't disagree.  But it is useful.  We already pass a block of data containing
environment variables and arguments from one process to the next.  Preserving 
additional segments is not a big leap from there.

- Steve