linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boris Lukashev <blukashev@sempervictus.com>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
Cc: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:36:30 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFUG7CeAfymvCC5jpBSM88X=8nSu-ktE0h81Ws1dAO0KrZk=9w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8eb12a75-4957-d5eb-9a14-387788728b8a@huawei.com>

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 25/01/18 17:38, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:14:28AM -0500, Boris Lukashev wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> DMA/physmap access coupled with a knowledge of which virtual mappings
>>> are in the physical space should be enough for an attacker to bypass
>>> the gating mechanism this work imposes. Not trivial, but not
>>> impossible. Since there's no way to prevent that sort of access in
>>> current hardware (especially something like a NIC or GPU working
>>> independently of the CPU altogether)
>
> [...]
>
>> I am not saying that this can not happen but that we are trying our best
>> to avoid it.
>
> How about an opt-in verification, similar to what proposed by Boris
> Lukashev?
>
> When reading back the data, one could access the pointer directly and
> bypass the verification, or could use a function that explicitly checks
> the integrity of the data.
>
> Starting from an unprotected kmalloc allocation, even just turning the
> data into R/O is an improvement, but if one can afford the overhead of
> performing the verification, why not?
>

I like the idea of making the verification call optional for consumers
allowing for fast/slow+hard paths depending on their needs.
Cant see any additional vectors for abuse (other than the original
ones effecting out-of-band modification) introduced by having
verify/normal callers, but i've not had enough coffee yet. Any access
races or things like that come to mind for anyone? Shouldn't happen
with a write-once allocation, but again, lacking coffee.

> It would still be better if the service was provided by the library,
> instead than implemented by individual users, I think.
>
> --
> igor

-Boris

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-26 16:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-24 17:56 [RFC PATCH v11 0/6] mm: security: ro protection for dynamic data Igor Stoppa
2018-01-24 17:56 ` [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations Igor Stoppa
2018-01-24 17:56 ` [PATCH 2/6] genalloc: selftest Igor Stoppa
2018-01-24 17:56 ` [PATCH 3/6] struct page: add field for vm_struct Igor Stoppa
2018-01-24 17:56 ` [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory Igor Stoppa
2018-01-24 19:10   ` [kernel-hardening] " Jann Horn
2018-01-25 11:59     ` Igor Stoppa
2018-01-25 15:14       ` Boris Lukashev
2018-01-25 15:38         ` Jerome Glisse
2018-01-26 12:28           ` Igor Stoppa
2018-01-26 16:36             ` Boris Lukashev [this message]
2018-01-30 13:46               ` Igor Stoppa
2018-01-26  5:35     ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-01-26 11:46       ` Igor Stoppa
2018-02-02 18:39       ` Christopher Lameter
2018-02-03 15:38         ` Igor Stoppa
2018-02-03 19:57           ` Igor Stoppa
2018-02-03 20:12             ` Boris Lukashev
2018-02-03 20:32               ` Igor Stoppa
2018-02-03 22:29                 ` Boris Lukashev
2018-02-04 15:05                   ` Igor Stoppa
2018-02-12 23:27                     ` Kees Cook
2018-02-13  0:40                       ` Laura Abbott
2018-02-13  1:25                         ` Kees Cook
2018-02-13  3:39                           ` Jann Horn
2018-02-13 16:09                             ` Laura Abbott
2018-02-13 21:43                               ` Kees Cook
2018-02-14 19:06                                 ` arm64 physmap (was Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory) Laura Abbott
2018-02-14 19:28                                   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-02-14 20:13                                     ` Laura Abbott
2018-02-14 19:29                                   ` Kees Cook
2018-02-14 19:35                                     ` Kees Cook
2018-02-20 16:28                                     ` Igor Stoppa
2018-02-21 22:22                                       ` Kees Cook
2018-02-14 19:48                                   ` Kees Cook
2018-02-14 22:13                                     ` Tycho Andersen
2018-02-14 22:27                                       ` Kees Cook
2018-02-13 15:20                         ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory Igor Stoppa
2018-02-13 15:20                         ` Igor Stoppa
     [not found]                         ` <5a83024c.64369d0a.a1e94.cdd6SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
2018-02-13 18:10                           ` [kernel-hardening] " Laura Abbott
2018-02-20 17:16                             ` Igor Stoppa
2018-02-21 22:37                               ` Kees Cook
2018-02-05 15:40           ` Christopher Lameter
2018-02-09 11:17             ` Igor Stoppa
2018-01-26 19:41   ` Igor Stoppa
2018-01-24 17:56 ` [PATCH 5/6] Documentation for Pmalloc Igor Stoppa
2018-01-24 19:14   ` Ralph Campbell
2018-01-25  7:53     ` Igor Stoppa
2018-01-24 17:56 ` [PATCH 6/6] Pmalloc: self-test Igor Stoppa

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAFUG7CeAfymvCC5jpBSM88X=8nSu-ktE0h81Ws1dAO0KrZk=9w@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=blukashev@sempervictus.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=igor.stoppa@huawei.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=labbott@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox