From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, hongjiu.lu@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] binfmt_elf: Fix PIE execution with randomization disabled
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:59:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111003125911.GO16720@zod.bos.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110031407280.31654@pobox.suse.cz>
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:10:26PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > We've had a bug report[1] of some PIE programs getting a SIGKILL upon exec
> > if you disable address randomization with:
> >
> > echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space
> >
> > I tracked this down to get_unmapped_area_prot returning -ENOMEM because
> > the address being passed in is larger than TASK_SIZE - len for the bss
> > section of the test executable. That filters back to set_brk returning
> > an error to load_elf_binary and the SIGKILL being sent around line 872
> > of binfmt_elf.c.
> >
> > H.J. submitted an upstream bug report [2] as well, but got no feedback
> > and we can't view it with kernel.org being down anyway. He came up with
> > the patch below as well, which is what I'm sending on for comments. The
> > changelog is my addition, so if that is wrong yell at me.
> >
> > I wanted to get some more eyes on this, because the current code sets
> > load_bias to 0 unconditionally on CONFIG_X86 or CONFIG_ARM. I have no
> > idea why that is. The original execshield patches had an #ifdef on
> > __i386__ but the patch that was commited to add PIE support has the
> > CONFIG_X86 setting.
> >
> > Thoughts welcome.
> >
> > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708563
> > [2] http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36372
> >
> > josh
> >
> > ---
> >
> > From: H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
> >
> > Set the load_bias for PIE executables to a non-zero address if no virtual
> > address is specified. This prevents us from running out of room for all
> > the various loadable segments when ASLR is disabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> > index 303983f..069ee29 100644
> > --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> > +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> > @@ -794,9 +794,14 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > /* Try and get dynamic programs out of the way of the
> > * default mmap base, as well as whatever program they
> > * might try to exec. This is because the brk will
> > - * follow the loader, and is not movable. */
> > + * follow the loader, and is not movable. Don't use
> > + * 0 load address since we may not have room for
> > + * all loadable segements. */
> > #if defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_ARM)
> > - load_bias = 0;
> > + if (vaddr)
> > + load_bias = 0;
> > + else
> > + load_bias = ELF_PAGESTART(ELF_ET_DYN_BASE);
>
> If you do this unconditionally, I can't see how ASLR could be working at
> all -- this patch causes that elf_addr() is always called with non-zero
> 'addr' argument, right? (haven't verified by actually testing the patch
> yet, but I fail to see how come this simply doesn't break ASLR
> completely).
>
> Checking for PF_RANDOMIZE flag should be the way to go here.
I sent out a pseudo-patch that did that (I think). Could you take a
look and let me know if that seems more appropriate?
josh
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-03 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-29 19:53 Josh Boyer
2011-09-29 21:19 ` Andrew Morton
2011-09-29 21:36 ` Lu, Hongjiu
2011-09-30 0:41 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-09-30 2:16 ` Josh Boyer
2011-10-03 14:53 ` Jiri Kosina
2011-10-03 15:03 ` Josh Boyer
2011-10-03 15:11 ` [PATCH v2] binfmt_elf: Fix PIE execution with randomization disabled (was Re: [RFC PATCH] binfmt_elf: Fix PIE execution with randomization disabled) Jiri Kosina
2011-10-03 15:42 ` Josh Boyer
2011-10-03 15:56 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-10-03 16:02 ` Lu, Hongjiu
2011-10-03 16:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-10-03 21:14 ` Jiri Kosina
2011-10-03 22:03 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-03 22:06 ` Jiri Kosina
2011-10-03 22:56 ` [PATCH v3] " Jiri Kosina
2011-10-08 22:35 ` [PATCH v2] " Jiri Kosina
2011-10-03 12:10 ` [RFC PATCH] binfmt_elf: Fix PIE execution with randomization disabled Jiri Kosina
2011-10-03 12:59 ` Josh Boyer [this message]
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=20111003125911.GO16720@zod.bos.redhat.com \
--to=jwboyer@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hongjiu.lu@intel.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®