linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] implement lightweight guard pages

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: <8471d7b1-576b-41a6-91fb-1c9baae8c540@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 09:19:03 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, fw@...eb.enyo.de
Cc: James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, brauner@...nel.org,
 chris@...kel.net, deller@....de, hch@...radead.org,
 ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, jannh@...gle.com, jcmvbkbc@...il.com,
 jeffxu@...omium.org, jhubbard@...dia.com, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
 mattst88@...il.com, muchun.song@...ux.dev, paulmck@...nel.org,
 richard.henderson@...aro.org, shuah@...nel.org, sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com,
 surenb@...gle.com, tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vbabka@...e.cz,
 willy@...radead.org, elver@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] implement lightweight guard pages

On 23.10.24 08:24, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Hi Florian, Lorenzo,
> 
> This looks great!
> 
> What I am VERY interested in is if poisoned pages cause SIGSEGV even when
> the access happens in the kernel. Namely, the syscall still returns EFAULT,
> but also SIGSEGV is queued on return to user-space.
> 
> Catching bad accesses in system calls is currently the weak spot for
> all user-space bug detection tools (GWP-ASan, libefence, libefency, etc).
> It's almost possible with userfaultfd, but catching faults in the kernel
> requires admin capability, so not really an option for generic bug
> detection tools (+inconvinience of userfaultfd setup/handler).
> Intercepting all EFAULT from syscalls is not generally possible
> (w/o ptrace, usually not an option as well), and EFAULT does not always
> mean a bug.
> 
> Triggering SIGSEGV even in syscalls would be not just a performance
> optimization, but a new useful capability that would allow it to catch
> more bugs.

Right, we discussed that offline also as a possible extension to the 
userfaultfd SIGBUS mode.

I did not look into that yet, but I was wonder if there could be cases 
where a different process could trigger that SIGSEGV, and how to (and if 
to) handle that.

For example, ptrace (access_remote_vm()) -> GUP likely can trigger that. 
I think with userfaultfd() we will currently return -EFAULT, because we 
call get_user_page_vma_remote() that is not prepared for dropping the 
mmap lock. Possibly that is the right thing to do, but not sure :)

These "remote" faults set FOLL_REMOTE -> FAULT_FLAG_REMOTE, so we might 
be able to distinguish them and perform different handling.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb