linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 23/39] mm: Don't allow write GUPs to shadow stack memory

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: <6adfa0b5c38a9362f819fcc364e02c37d99a7f4a.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 18:42:28 +0000
From:   "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To:     "fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>
CC:     "bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Syromiatnikov, Eugene" <esyr@...hat.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "nadav.amit@...il.com" <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        "jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "dethoma@...rosoft.com" <dethoma@...rosoft.com>,
        "kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com" <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Schimpe, Christina" <christina.schimpe@...el.com>,
        "mike.kravetz@...cle.com" <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>, "rppt@...nel.org" <rppt@...nel.org>,
        "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gorcunov@...il.com" <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 23/39] mm: Don't allow write GUPs to shadow stack
 memory

Ping Cristina regarding GDB.

Ping Kees regarding /proc/self/mem.

On Tue, 2023-01-24 at 17:26 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Isn't it possible to overwrite GOT pointers using the same
> > > vector?
> > > So I think it's merely reflecting the status quo.
> > 
> > There was some debate on this. /proc/self/mem can currently write
> > through read-only memory which protects executable code. So should
> > shadow stack get separate rules? Is ROP a worry when you can
> > overwrite
> > executable code?
> > 
> 
> The question is, if there is reasonable debugging reason to keep it.
> I 
> assume if a debugger would adjust the ordinary stack, it would have
> to 
> adjust the shadow stack as well (oh my ...). So it sounds reasonable
> to 
> have it in theory at least ... not sure when debugger would support 
> that, but maybe they already do.

GDB support for shadow stack is queued up for whenever the kernel
interface settles. I believe it just uses ptrace, and not this proc.
But yea ptrace poke will still need to use FOLL_FORCE and be able to
write through shadow stacks.

> 
> > The consensus seemed to lean towards not making special rules for
> > this
> > case, and there was some discussion that /proc/self/mem should
> > maybe be
> > hardened generally.
> 
> I agree with that. It's a debugging mechanism that a process can
> abuse 
> to do nasty stuff to its memory that it maybe shouldn't be able to do
> ...

Ok.