From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] fs proc: make pagemap a privileged interface
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 18:08:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h9ttrcpr.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jLMQcNty4xes8TjQd8ZvCk2to5NkObCX0ofJQr9vUknZA@mail.gmail.com> (Kees Cook's message of "Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:22:08 -0700")
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> writes:
>>
>>> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> Physical addresses are sensitive information. There are
>>> existing, known exploits that are made easier if physical
>>> information is available. Here is one example:
>>>
>>> http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~vpk/papers/ret2dir.sec14.pdf
>>>
>>> If you know the physical address of something you also know at
>>> which kernel virtual address you can find something (modulo
>>> highmem). It means that things that keep the kernel from
>>> accessing user mappings (like SMAP/SMEP) can be worked around
>>> because the _kernel_ mapping can get used instead.
>>>
>>> But, /proc/$pid/pagemap exposes the physical addresses of all
>>> pages accessible to userspace. This works against all of the
>>> efforts to keep kernel addresses out of places where unprivileged
>>> apps can find them.
>>>
>>> This patch introduces a "paranoid" option for /proc. It can be
>>> enabled like this:
>>>
>>> mount -o remount,paranoid /proc
>>>
>>> Or when /proc is mounted initially. When 'paranoid' mode is
>>> active, opens to /proc/$pid/pagemap will return -EPERM for users
>>> without CAP_SYS_RAWIO. It can be disabled like this:
>>>
>>> mount -o remount,notparanoid /proc
>>>
>>> The option is applied to the pid namespace, so an app that wanted
>>> a separate policy from the rest of the system could get run in
>>> its own pid namespace.
>>>
>>> I'm not really that stuck on the name. I'm not opposed to making
>>> it apply only to pagemap or to giving it a pagemap-specific
>>> name.
>>>
>>> pagemap is also the kind of feature that could be used to escalate
>>> privileged from root in to the kernel. It probably needs to be
>>> protected in the same way that /dev/mem or module loading is in
>>> cases where the kernel needs to be protected from root, thus the
>>> choice to use CAP_SYS_RAWIO.
>>
>>
>> There is already a way to make pagemap go away. It is called
>> CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONITOR.
>>
>> I suspect the right answer here is if you enable kernel address
>> randomization you disable CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONTIOR. Aka you make the
>> two options conflict with each other.
>
> It's not a good idea to make CONFIG options conflict with each other
> like this as it puts distros is a tricky spot to decide which to use.
> Allowing both and having a runtime flag of some kind tends to be the
> better option (e.g. kASLR vs Hibernation).
But there is a fundamental conflict. As such it might as well be
expressed in Kconfig.
>> That is a lot less code and a lot less to maintain.
>>
>> On the other hand if this is truly a valuable interface that you can't
>> part with we need an alternative to pagemaps that does the same job
>> with out the exploit potential. And I don't how to do that.
>>
>> Arguing in favor of just making the options conflict is the fact that
>> kernel address randomization is pretty much snake oil. At least on
>> x86_64 the address pool is so small it can be trivially brute forced. I
>> think there are maybe 10 bits you can randomize within.
>>
>> As for a way to disable this I expect it would do better with something
>> like a set once flag that prevents a process and all of it's children
>> from accessing this file.
>>
>> *Blink* *Blink* Did you say you are worried about escalting privileges
>> from root into the kernel space. That is non-sense. We give root the
>> power to shot themselves in the foot and any proc option will be
>> something that root will be able to get around.
>>
>> The pieces of the patch description don't add up.
>
> No, that's an entirely valid use-case. You can trust the kernel but
> not root. This is the point of the "trusted_kernel" patch series that
> disables all sorts of dangerous interfaces that allow root to get at
> physical memory.
>
> This situation is more a memory leak than a direct compromise, so it
> seems like providing at least some runtime control of it (separate
> from potential future "trusted_kernel" stuff) makes sense.
I am too tired to argue about the kASLR snake-oil.
I do not think a proc mount option is at all apropriate for controlling
the behavior of the pagemap file. And "paranoid" is entirely too
generic of a string to have any meaning.
Either just tighten the permissions when kASLR is enabled, or have the
file go away entirely.
If you want run-time knobs there are all kinds of run-time knobs you can
use.
If the concern is to protect against root getting into the kernel the
"trusted_kernel" snake-oil just compile out the pagemap file. Nothing
else is remotely interesting from a mainenance point of view.
As I said.
Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-09 23:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20150309204321.AAF412E0@viggo.jf.intel.com>
2015-03-09 21:31 ` Kees Cook
[not found] ` <20150309204322.50DA6B5D@viggo.jf.intel.com>
2015-03-09 21:32 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] proc: config options for making privileged /proc the default Kees Cook
2015-03-09 22:13 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] fs proc: make pagemap a privileged interface Eric W. Biederman
2015-03-09 22:22 ` Kees Cook
2015-03-09 23:08 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2015-03-09 23:40 ` Kees Cook
2015-03-09 23:43 ` Eric W. Biederman
2015-03-10 0:03 ` Kees Cook
2015-03-10 2:51 ` Dave Hansen
2015-03-10 4:49 ` Eric W. Biederman
2015-03-10 2:28 ` Dave Hansen
2015-03-12 22:35 ` Andrew Morton
2015-03-13 15:56 ` Dave Hansen
2015-03-13 17:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
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=87h9ttrcpr.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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
Powered by JetHome