All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Kees Cook <kees@ubuntu.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@vsecurity.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
	Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm: restrict access to /proc/slabinfo
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:58:56 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110919175856.GA4282@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJsxLGc0bwCkDtk2PVe7c155a9wVoDAY0CmYDTLg8_bL4qxqg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 20:51 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, but there's no way for users to know where the allocations came from
> >> if you mix them up with other kmalloc-128 call-sites. That way the number
> >> of private files will stay private to the user, no? Doesn't that give you even
> >> better protection against the infoleak?
> >
> > No, what it gives us is an obscurity, not a protection.  I'm sure it
> > highly depends on the specific situation whether an attacker is able to
> > identify whether the call is from e.g. ecryptfs or from VFS.  Also the
> > correlation between the number in slabinfo and the real private actions
> > still exists.
> 
> How is the attacker able to identify that we kmalloc()'d from ecryptfs or
> VFS based on non-root /proc/slabinfo when the slab allocator itself does
> not have that sort of information if you mix up the allocations?

How can you _guarantee_ that they mix?

> Isn't this
> much stronger protection especially if you combine that with /proc/slabinfo
> restriction?

I don't see any reason to change allocators if we close slabinfo.

Thanks,

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Kees Cook <kees@ubuntu.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@vsecurity.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
	Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm: restrict access to /proc/slabinfo
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:58:56 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110919175856.GA4282@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJsxLGc0bwCkDtk2PVe7c155a9wVoDAY0CmYDTLg8_bL4qxqg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 20:51 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, but there's no way for users to know where the allocations came from
> >> if you mix them up with other kmalloc-128 call-sites. That way the number
> >> of private files will stay private to the user, no? Doesn't that give you even
> >> better protection against the infoleak?
> >
> > No, what it gives us is an obscurity, not a protection.  I'm sure it
> > highly depends on the specific situation whether an attacker is able to
> > identify whether the call is from e.g. ecryptfs or from VFS.  Also the
> > correlation between the number in slabinfo and the real private actions
> > still exists.
> 
> How is the attacker able to identify that we kmalloc()'d from ecryptfs or
> VFS based on non-root /proc/slabinfo when the slab allocator itself does
> not have that sort of information if you mix up the allocations?

How can you _guarantee_ that they mix?

> Isn't this
> much stronger protection especially if you combine that with /proc/slabinfo
> restriction?

I don't see any reason to change allocators if we close slabinfo.

Thanks,

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2011-09-19 17:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-09-10 16:40 [kernel-hardening] [RFC PATCH 1/2] proc: force dcache drop on unauthorized access Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-10 16:40 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-10 16:41 ` [kernel-hardening] [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm: restrict access to /proc/slabinfo Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-10 16:41   ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-10 16:41   ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-12 15:06   ` [kernel-hardening] " Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-09-12 15:06     ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-09-12 15:06     ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-09-13  6:28     ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-13  6:28       ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-13  6:28       ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 13:16   ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 13:16     ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 13:16     ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 15:18     ` [kernel-hardening] " Dave Hansen
2011-09-14 15:18       ` Dave Hansen
2011-09-14 15:18       ` Dave Hansen
2011-09-14 15:42       ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 15:42         ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 15:48         ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 15:48           ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 18:24         ` Dave Hansen
2011-09-14 18:24           ` Dave Hansen
2011-09-14 18:41   ` Dave Hansen
2011-09-14 18:41     ` Dave Hansen
2011-09-14 18:41     ` Dave Hansen
2011-09-14 19:14     ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 19:14       ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 19:14       ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-14 19:27   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2011-09-14 19:27     ` Kees Cook
2011-09-14 19:27     ` Kees Cook
2011-09-18 17:05     ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-18 17:05       ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 13:42       ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 13:42         ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 14:30       ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 14:30         ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 14:46         ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 14:46           ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 15:13           ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 15:13             ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 15:57             ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 15:57               ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 16:11               ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 16:11                 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 16:18                 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 16:18                   ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 17:31                   ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 17:31                     ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 17:35                     ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 17:35                       ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 17:51                       ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 17:51                         ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 19:59                         ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-19 20:02                           ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 20:02                             ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 20:36                             ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-19 17:51                       ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 17:51                         ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 17:58                         ` Vasiliy Kulikov [this message]
2011-09-19 17:58                           ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 18:46                           ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 18:46                             ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 18:55                             ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 18:55                               ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 19:20                               ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 19:20                                 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 19:33                               ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 19:33                                 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 18:55                             ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-19 18:55                               ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-19 19:18                               ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 19:18                                 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 19:45                                 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 19:45                                   ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 20:59                                 ` David Rientjes
2011-09-19 20:59                                   ` David Rientjes
2011-09-19 18:03                         ` Dave Hansen
2011-09-19 18:03                           ` Dave Hansen
2011-09-19 18:21                           ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 18:21                             ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-19 19:45           ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-19 19:55             ` Alan Cox
2011-09-19 19:55               ` Alan Cox
2011-09-21 17:05               ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-21 17:05                 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-22  2:20                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-22 17:57 ` [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] proc: force dcache drop on unauthorized access Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-22 17:57   ` Vasiliy Kulikov

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=20110919175856.GA4282@albatros \
    --to=segoon@openwall.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=drosenberg@vsecurity.com \
    --cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
    --cc=jj@chaosbits.net \
    --cc=kees@ubuntu.com \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.com \
    --cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.