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: <E857CF98-EEB2-4F83-8305-0A52B463A661@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 07:23:27 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...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>,
        "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
        "rppt@...nel.org" <rppt@...nel.org>,
        "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

On January 25, 2023 1:29:20 AM PST, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>On 25.01.23 00:41, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
>> On Tue, 2023-01-24 at 15:08 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> I'd prefer to avoid adding more FOLL_FORCE if we can. If gdb can do
>>> stack manipulations through a ptrace interface then let's leave off
>>> FOLL_FORCE.
>> 
>> Ptrace and /proc/self/mem both use FOLL_FORCE. I think ptrace will
>> always need it or something like it for debugging.
>> 
>> To jog your memory, this series doesn't change what uses FOLL_FORCE. It
>> just sets the shadow stack rules to be the same as read-only memory. So
>> even though shadow stack memory is sort of writable, it's a bit more
>> locked down and FOLL_FORCE is required to write to it with GUP.
>> 
>> If we just remove FOLL_FORCE from /proc/self/mem, something will
>> probably break right? How do we do this? Some sort of opt-in?
>
>I don't think removing that is an option. It's another debug interface that has been allowing such access for ever ...
>
>Blocking /proc/self/mem access completely for selected processes might be the better alternative.
>

Yeah, this would be nice. Kind of like being undumpable or no_new_privs.



-- 
Kees Cook