[RFC PATCH 1/5] arm: mm: add CONFIG_STRICT_MEMORY_RWX

[lauraa@codeaurora.org (Laura Abbott)]

On 10/9/2013 1:04 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> From: Larry Bassel <lbassel@codeaurora.org>
>>
>> If this is set, kernel text will be made RX, kernel data and stack
>> RW, rodata R so that writing to kernel text, executing kernel data
>> or stack, or writing to read-only data or kernel text will not
>> succeed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Larry Bassel <lbassel@codeaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm/mm/Kconfig |   12 ++++++++++++
>>   1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mm/Kconfig
>> index cd2c88e..c223d5c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/Kconfig
>> @@ -952,3 +952,15 @@ config ARCH_HAS_BARRIERS
>>          help
>>            This option allows the use of custom mandatory barriers
>>            included via the mach/barriers.h file.
>> +
>> +config STRICT_MEMORY_RWX
>> +       bool "restrict kernel memory permissions as much as possible"
>> +       default n
>> +       help
>> +         If this is set, kernel text will be made RX, kernel data and stack
>> +         RW, rodata R (otherwise all of the kernel 1-to-1 mapping is
>> +         made RWX).
>> +         The tradeoff is that several sections are padded to
>> +         1M boundaries (because their permissions are different and
>> +         splitting the 1M pages into 4K ones causes TLB performance
>> +         problems), wasting memory.
>> --
>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
>> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>>
>
> As a bike-shedding aside, would it make sense to attempt to follow the
> x86 CONFIG naming convention for this? I don't like that x86's has
> "DEBUG" in the name, but it might be nice for people looking for a
> single name for these things. Unfortunately, x86 already has two:
>
> CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA
> CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX
>
> It'd be nice to have a common set, I think.
>

Agreed. My focus was on demonstrating the possibility of these features 
here. We may have to split things up a bit and or add another Kconfig. 
This is doing more than just RODATA though and the module work is 
separate (I sent patches out for that before and they never went 
anywhere because it was suggested to make the APIs less x86ish).
I'm sure there will be plenty of time for shedding bikes for lots of 
things in this series.

Laura

> -Kees
>


-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation