linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] module: Harden STRICT_MODULE

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: <20200821121959.GC20833@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:20:00 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, nd <nd@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module: Harden STRICT_MODULE_RWX

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:07:13PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 15:04, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > +++ Ard Biesheuvel [13/08/20 10:36 +0200]:
> > >On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 22:00, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 06:37:57PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >> > I know there is little we can do at this point, apart from ignoring
> > >> > the permissions - perhaps we should just defer the w^x check until
> > >> > after calling module_frob_arch_sections()?
> > >>
> > >> My earlier suggestion was to ignore it for 0-sized sections.
> > >
> > >Only they are 1 byte sections in this case.
> > >
> > >We override the sh_type and sh_flags explicitly for these sections at
> > >module load time, so deferring the check seems like a reasonable
> > >alternative to me.
> >
> > So module_enforce_rwx_sections() is already called after
> > module_frob_arch_sections() - which really baffled me at first, since
> > sh_type and sh_flags should have been set already in
> > module_frob_arch_sections().
> >
> > I added some debug prints to see which section the module code was
> > tripping on, and it was .text.ftrace_trampoline. See this snippet from
> > arm64's module_frob_arch_sections():
> >
> >                 else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE) &&
> >                          !strcmp(secstrings + sechdrs[i].sh_name,
> >                                  ".text.ftrace_trampoline"))
> >                         tramp = sechdrs + i;
> >
> > Since Mauro's config doesn't have CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE enabled, tramp
> > is never set here and the if (tramp) check at the end of the function
> > fails, so its section flags are never set, so they remain WAX and fail
> > the rwx check.
> 
> Right. Our module.lds does not go through the preprocessor, so we
> cannot add the #ifdef check there currently. So we should either drop
> the IS_ENABLED() check here, or simply rename the section, dropping
> the .text prefix (which doesn't seem to have any significance outside
> this context)
> 
> I'll leave it to Will to make the final call here.

Why don't we just preprocess the linker script, like we do for the main
kernel?

Will