[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sftqtp5z.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 14:36:24 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-x86_64@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
musl@...ts.openwall.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] x86: Implement arch_prctl(ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL)
to disable vsyscall
* Andy Lutomirski:
> Is there a reason you didn't just change the check earlier in the
> function to:
>
> if (vsyscall_mode == NONE || current->mm->context.vsyscall_disabled)
Andrei requested that I don't print anything if vsyscall was disabled.
The original patch used a different message for better diagnostics.
> Also, I still think the prctl should not be available if
> vsyscall=emulate. Either we should fully implement it or we should
> not implement. We could even do:
>
> pr_warn_once("userspace vsyscall hardening request ignored because you
> have vsyscall=emulate. Unless you absolutely need vsyscall=emulate,
> update your system to use vsyscall=xonly.\n");
>
> and thus encourage good behavior.
I think there is still some hardening applied even with
vsyscall=emulate. The question is what is more important: the
additional hardening, or clean, easily described behavior of the
interface.
Maybe ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL could return different values based on to
what degree it could disable vsyscall?
The pr_warn_once does not seem particularly useful. Anyone who upgrades
glibc and still uses vsyscall=emulate will see that, with no way to
disable it.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists