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>
next prev parent 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