linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] mseal: allow noop mprotect

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: <CABi2SkUs3bXB2jw+1CUQPtWfZ6-kZDunQweOSSw6j_8JALUfAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:29:50 -0700
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, 
	Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, broonie@...nel.org, skhan@...uxfoundation.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jorgelo@...omium.org, 
	pedro.falcato@...il.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, jannh@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] mseal: allow noop mprotect

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 9:45 AM Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 03:50:40PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > What about madvise() with MADV_DONTNEED on a r/o VMA that's not faulted in?
> > That's a no-op right? But it's not permitted.
>
Madvise's semantics are about behavior, while mprotect is about
attributes. To me:  madvise is like "make this VMA do that" while
mprotect is about "update this VMA's attributes to a new value".

It is more difficult to determine if a behavior is no-op, so I don't
intend to apply the same no-op concept to madvise().

> Hmm, yes, that's a good example. Thank you!
>
> > So now we have an inconsistency between the two calls.
>
> Yeah, I see your concern now.
>
> > I don't know what you mean by 'ergonomic'?
>
> I was thinking about idempotent-ness. Like, some library setting up a
> memory region, it can't call its setup routine twice if the second time
> through (where no changes are made) it gets rejected. But I think this
> is likely just a userspace problem: check for the VMAs before blindly
> trying to do it again. (This is strictly an imagined situation.)
>
Yes.

 We also don't have a system call to query the "mprotect" attributes,
so it is understandable that userspace can rely on idempotents of the
mprotect.

> > My reply seemed to get truncated at the end here :) So let me ask again -
> > do you have a practical case in mind for this?
>
I noticed there were idempotent mprotects last year while working on
applying mseal on stack in Android. I assume this might not be the
only instance since mprotect gets called a lot in general.

Blocking this won't improve security, it could actually hinder the
adoption of mseal, i.e. force apps to make code change.

-Jeff

> Sorry, I didn't have any reply to that part, so I left it off. If Jeff
> has a specific case in mind, I'll let him answer that part. :)
>
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook