[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202210032119.EF573F9E@keescook>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 21:21:58 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V . Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
joao.moreira@...el.com, John Allen <john.allen@....com>,
kcc@...gle.com, eranian@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org,
jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com, dethoma@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 22/39] mm: Don't allow write GUPs to shadow stack
memory
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 03:49:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 10/3/22 11:39, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:29:19PM -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Still allow FOLL_FORCE to write through shadow stack protections, as it
> > > does for read-only protections.
> >
> > As I asked in the cover letter: why do we need to add this for shstk? It
> > was a mistake for general memory. :P
>
> For debuggers, which use FOLL_FORCE, quite intentionally, to modify text.
> And once a debugger has ptrace write access to a target, shadow stacks
> provide exactly no protection -- ptrace can modify text and all registers.
i.e. via ptrace? Yeah, I grudgingly accept the ptrace need for
FOLL_FORCE.
> But /proc/.../mem may be a different story, and I'd be okay with having
> FOLL_PROC_MEM for legacy compatibility via /proc/.../mem and not allowing
> that to access shadow stacks. This does seem like it may not be very
> useful, though.
I *really* don't like the /mem use of FOLL_FORCE, though. I think the
rationale has been "using PTRACE_POKE is too slow". Again, I can live
with it, I was just hoping we could avoid expanding that questionable
behavior, especially since it's a bypass of WRSS.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists