Does Linux process exist information leakage?

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[夏业添]

Hi,
   My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such thing on
the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after that,
I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using fork() to
create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400 bytes char
array in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some memory to seek char
'a' in a new one process or many new processes, but failed. All memory I
malloced was full of zero.
   As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
believe that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by other
process, and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test it? Or
where can I get related information?
   Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120111/37ee4195/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Jonathan Neuschäfer]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 08:53:07PM +0800, ??? wrote:
>    As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized"

That means, if malloc returns a region that has previously been malloc'd,
written to and free'd, you may get the these previously written data.

HTH,
	Jonathan Neusch?fer

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Dave Hylands]

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:53 AM, ??? <summerxyt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> ? ?My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
> memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such thing on
> the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after that,
> I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using fork() to
> create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400 bytes char array
> in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some memory to seek char 'a' in
> a new one process or many new processes, but failed. All memory I malloced
> was full of zero.

Yeah - so if it were possible for one process to get information about
another process like that you would have a security leak.

> ? ?As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I believe
> that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by other process,
> and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test it? Or where can
> I get related information?

All pages allocated from the OS will be initially zero'd, however,
once your process owns the page, if you filled it with Z's and then
freed it and reallocated you might very weill get your Z's back
instead of 0's. You'll never get data from another process though.

-- 
Dave Hylands
Shuswap, BC, Canada
http://www.davehylands.com

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Scott Lovenberg]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:45, Dave Hylands <dhylands@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:53 AM, ??? <summerxyt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >    My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
> > memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such thing
> on
> > the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after
> that,
> > I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using fork()
> to
> > create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400 bytes char
> array
> > in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some memory to seek char
> 'a' in
> > a new one process or many new processes, but failed. All memory I
> malloced
> > was full of zero.
>
> Yeah - so if it were possible for one process to get information about
> another process like that you would have a security leak.
>
> >    As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
> believe
> > that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by other process,
> > and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test it? Or where
> can
> > I get related information?
>
> All pages allocated from the OS will be initially zero'd, however,
> once your process owns the page, if you filled it with Z's and then
> freed it and reallocated you might very weill get your Z's back
> instead of 0's. You'll never get data from another process though.
>

Real world example in C; I fixed a security bug in Samba that dealt with
this exact problem.  Credential files were read to memory as the root user
and then the memory was freed without being zeroed.  A user could therefore
read the contents of a file that they didn't have permission to read
because the whole thing was put in memory by a user that had permission to
view the file.  Someone clever could churn through memory and find the
credentials if they knew that the mount command was just run.

I added a memset() to the end of the parsing function to zero out the
memory before freeing back to the OS.
http://git.samba.org/?p=cifs-utils.git;a=commitdiff;h=6c917ebf360b3dbbc4c7ad9af3e106170528aa3c
 (you
can skip to the end of the patch if you don't want to follow the entire
flow of the code)

Does this help express the idea any better?
-- 
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120111/dcc74a46/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[夏业添]

Yeah, it is the countermeasure of a similar secure risk. But I know little
about Samba, and could you explain more precisely about how the attacker
seek the credentials? That is exactly what I want to test but failed...

Thanks!

2012/1/12 Scott Lovenberg <scott.lovenberg@gmail.com>

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:45, Dave Hylands <dhylands@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:53 AM, ??? <summerxyt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >    My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
>> > memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such
>> thing on
>> > the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after
>> that,
>> > I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using fork()
>> to
>> > create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400 bytes char
>> array
>> > in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some memory to seek char
>> 'a' in
>> > a new one process or many new processes, but failed. All memory I
>> malloced
>> > was full of zero.
>>
>> Yeah - so if it were possible for one process to get information about
>> another process like that you would have a security leak.
>>
>> >    As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
>> believe
>> > that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by other
>> process,
>> > and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test it? Or
>> where can
>> > I get related information?
>>
>> All pages allocated from the OS will be initially zero'd, however,
>> once your process owns the page, if you filled it with Z's and then
>> freed it and reallocated you might very weill get your Z's back
>> instead of 0's. You'll never get data from another process though.
>>
>
> Real world example in C; I fixed a security bug in Samba that dealt with
> this exact problem.  Credential files were read to memory as the root user
> and then the memory was freed without being zeroed.  A user could therefore
> read the contents of a file that they didn't have permission to read
> because the whole thing was put in memory by a user that had permission to
> view the file.  Someone clever could churn through memory and find the
> credentials if they knew that the mount command was just run.
>
> I added a memset() to the end of the parsing function to zero out the
> memory before freeing back to the OS.
>
> http://git.samba.org/?p=cifs-utils.git;a=commitdiff;h=6c917ebf360b3dbbc4c7ad9af3e106170528aa3c  (you
> can skip to the end of the patch if you don't want to follow the entire
> flow of the code)
>
> Does this help express the idea any better?
> --
> Peace and Blessings,
> -Scott.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120112/7579e62e/attachment-0001.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Jonathan Neuschäfer]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:52:33PM -0500, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
> Real world example in C; I fixed a security bug in Samba that dealt with
> this exact problem.  Credential files were read to memory as the root user
> and then the memory was freed without being zeroed.  A user could therefore
> read the contents of a file that they didn't have permission to read
> because the whole thing was put in memory by a user that had permission to
> view the file.  Someone clever could churn through memory and find the
> credentials if they knew that the mount command was just run.
> 
> I added a memset() to the end of the parsing function to zero out the
> memory before freeing back to the OS.

Could you please clarify how this "churning through memory" would work?

Of course someone could find another security bug and access heap space,
but that requires said other bug. Debuggers are also irrelevant to this,
because you need certain parmissions to run a program through a
debugger, and if you do that, you might also set a breakpoint in the
function and catch the credentials when it's run.

Swap disk are a real issue under some circumstances, though.
A page containing sensitive data may be swapped out and not be over-
written before an attacker can boot from an external medium (CD etc.)
and peek through the swap disk.
If you don't suspend (which means writing all pages to persistent
storage), mlock() would be the solution here (CMIIW). (Which doesn't
mean zeroing isn't also a good idea)

Of course, people should also encrypt their disks on this kind of server.

Thanks,
	Jonathan Neusch?fer

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Scott Lovenberg]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:00, Jonathan Neusch?fer <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:52:33PM -0500, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
> > Real world example in C; I fixed a security bug in Samba that dealt with
> > this exact problem.  Credential files were read to memory as the root
> user
> > and then the memory was freed without being zeroed.  A user could
> therefore
> > read the contents of a file that they didn't have permission to read
> > because the whole thing was put in memory by a user that had permission
> to
> > view the file.  Someone clever could churn through memory and find the
> > credentials if they knew that the mount command was just run.
> >
> > I added a memset() to the end of the parsing function to zero out the
> > memory before freeing back to the OS.
>
> Could you please clarify how this "churning through memory" would work?
>
> Of course someone could find another security bug and access heap space,
> but that requires said other bug. Debuggers are also irrelevant to this,
> because you need certain parmissions to run a program through a
> debugger, and if you do that, you might also set a breakpoint in the
> function and catch the credentials when it's run.
>
> Swap disk are a real issue under some circumstances, though.
> A page containing sensitive data may be swapped out and not be over-
> written before an attacker can boot from an external medium (CD etc.)
> and peek through the swap disk.
> If you don't suspend (which means writing all pages to persistent
> storage), mlock() would be the solution here (CMIIW). (Which doesn't
> mean zeroing isn't also a good idea)
>
> Of course, people should also encrypt their disks on this kind of server.
>
> Thanks,
>         Jonathan Neusch?fer
>

Sorry for taking so long to reply.

Let me walk you guys through how this bug could be exploited.
The file that you want to access is blocked from you by file system
permissions.  The root user (uid==0) can access this file (that contains
credentials) and read it into memory that it has malloc()'ed.  After the
process running as root is done, it free()'s the memory without zeroing it
out.  Now you (you clever hacker) spawn a process that requests memory in
large hunks.  It then searches for the string "password=" in that memory.
 Since the memory was free()'ed back to the pool without being changed, it
still contains the original information that was in the file that you
cannot read.  Does this make sense, or should I go into t a bit more detail?


-- 
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120116/db40fcba/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Jonathan Neuschäfer]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 01:19:22PM -0500, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
> Let me walk you guys through how this bug could be exploited.
> The file that you want to access is blocked from you by file system
> permissions.  The root user (uid==0) can access this file (that contains
> credentials) and read it into memory that it has malloc()'ed.  After the
> process running as root is done, it free()'s the memory without zeroing it
> out.  Now you (you clever hacker) spawn a process that requests memory in
> large hunks.  It then searches for the string "password=" in that memory.
>  Since the memory was free()'ed back to the pool without being changed, it
> still contains the original information that was in the file that you
> cannot read.  Does this make sense, or should I go into t a bit more detail?

But can you actually get this dirty memory on Linux?

I know two sources of memory that are used by malloc. One is brk(), the
other is mmapped pages of /dev/zero. With /dev/zero it's obvious that
you get empty pages (all-zero); with brk I wasn't sure so I wrote the
test program below and ran it. I didn't find any dirty (non-zero) memory.

Thanks,
	Jonathan Neusch?fer


--
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>

#define BLOCKSZ (1024 * 1024) /* one Mibi */

int main(void)
{
	int maxmb = 1024;
	unsigned i;
	void *BRK;

	BRK = sbrk(0);

	for (i = 0; i < maxmb; i++) {
		void *block = sbrk(BLOCKSZ);
		unsigned j, *p;

		if (block == (void *) -1) {
			printf("sbrk failed after %u blocks (%u bytes)\n", i, i * BLOCKSZ);
			break;
		}

		for (p = block, j = BLOCKSZ/sizeof(unsigned int); j--; p++)
			if (*p)
				printf("found data@BRK+%p: %u\n", ((void *)p) - BRK, *p);
	}

	return 0;
}

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Scott Lovenberg]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 18:45, Jonathan Neusch?fer <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 01:19:22PM -0500, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
> > Let me walk you guys through how this bug could be exploited.
> > The file that you want to access is blocked from you by file system
> > permissions.  The root user (uid==0) can access this file (that contains
> > credentials) and read it into memory that it has malloc()'ed.  After the
> > process running as root is done, it free()'s the memory without zeroing
> it
> > out.  Now you (you clever hacker) spawn a process that requests memory in
> > large hunks.  It then searches for the string "password=" in that memory.
> >  Since the memory was free()'ed back to the pool without being changed,
> it
> > still contains the original information that was in the file that you
> > cannot read.  Does this make sense, or should I go into t a bit more
> detail?
>
> But can you actually get this dirty memory on Linux?
>
> I know two sources of memory that are used by malloc. One is brk(), the
> other is mmapped pages of /dev/zero. With /dev/zero it's obvious that
> you get empty pages (all-zero); with brk I wasn't sure so I wrote the
> test program below and ran it. I didn't find any dirty (non-zero) memory.
>
> Thanks,
>        Jonathan Neusch?fer
>
>
> --
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> #define BLOCKSZ (1024 * 1024) /* one Mibi */
>
> int main(void)
> {
>        int maxmb = 1024;
>        unsigned i;
>        void *BRK;
>
>        BRK = sbrk(0);
>
>        for (i = 0; i < maxmb; i++) {
>                void *block = sbrk(BLOCKSZ);
>                unsigned j, *p;
>
>                if (block == (void *) -1) {
>                        printf("sbrk failed after %u blocks (%u bytes)\n",
> i, i * BLOCKSZ);
>                        break;
>                }
>
>                for (p = block, j = BLOCKSZ/sizeof(unsigned int); j--; p++)
>                        if (*p)
>                                printf("found data at BRK+%p: %u\n", ((void
> *)p) - BRK, *p);
>        }
>
>        return 0;
> }
>

Thanks for posting this.  I'm embarrassed that I never even bothered to
check if dirty memory was given back.  I guess I just assumed.  You know
what they say about assumptions...  Anyways, I think this is a great
discussion. :)


-- 
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120119/61cecfd7/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Greg Freemyer]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Neusch?fer
<j.neuschaefer@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:52:33PM -0500, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
>> Real world example in C; I fixed a security bug in Samba that dealt with
>> this exact problem. ?Credential files were read to memory as the root user
>> and then the memory was freed without being zeroed. ?A user could therefore
>> read the contents of a file that they didn't have permission to read
>> because the whole thing was put in memory by a user that had permission to
>> view the file. ?Someone clever could churn through memory and find the
>> credentials if they knew that the mount command was just run.
>>
>> I added a memset() to the end of the parsing function to zero out the
>> memory before freeing back to the OS.
>
> Could you please clarify how this "churning through memory" would work?
>
> Of course someone could find another security bug and access heap space,
> but that requires said other bug. Debuggers are also irrelevant to this,
> because you need certain parmissions to run a program through a
> debugger, and if you do that, you might also set a breakpoint in the
> function and catch the credentials when it's run.
>
> Swap disk are a real issue under some circumstances, though.
> A page containing sensitive data may be swapped out and not be over-
> written before an attacker can boot from an external medium (CD etc.)
> and peek through the swap disk.

Boot CDs mean physical access.  If the bad guy has physical access, all is lost.

=== specifically
If you want to defend against reboots to a boot CD, then all of memory
is potential leak.

http://citp.princeton.edu/research/memory/

My personal favorite is when they actually move the RAM chips from one
PC to another to get the data out of it.

After removing power, they immediately spray freon (or something
similarly cold) on the RAM chips to stabilize them, then move them to
another PC and recover the content.

I can't get the video to work right now, but here's a walk-thru with photos.

I quote:
===
We stored data in these memory modules, then cooled them, removed them
from the computer, and placed them in a container of liquid nitrogen
for an hour. After returning them to the computer, we found
practically no information had been lost. (Using liquid nitrogen would
be overkill for most attacks, since cheap, widely-available duster
spray would adequately cool the chips.)
===

Greg

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Scott Lovenberg]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 13:45, Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Neusch?fer
> <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:52:33PM -0500, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
> >> Real world example in C; I fixed a security bug in Samba that dealt with
> >> this exact problem.  Credential files were read to memory as the root
> user
> >> and then the memory was freed without being zeroed.  A user could
> therefore
> >> read the contents of a file that they didn't have permission to read
> >> because the whole thing was put in memory by a user that had permission
> to
> >> view the file.  Someone clever could churn through memory and find the
> >> credentials if they knew that the mount command was just run.
> >>
> >> I added a memset() to the end of the parsing function to zero out the
> >> memory before freeing back to the OS.
> >
> > Could you please clarify how this "churning through memory" would work?
> >
> > Of course someone could find another security bug and access heap space,
> > but that requires said other bug. Debuggers are also irrelevant to this,
> > because you need certain parmissions to run a program through a
> > debugger, and if you do that, you might also set a breakpoint in the
> > function and catch the credentials when it's run.
> >
> > Swap disk are a real issue under some circumstances, though.
> > A page containing sensitive data may be swapped out and not be over-
> > written before an attacker can boot from an external medium (CD etc.)
> > and peek through the swap disk.
>
> Boot CDs mean physical access.  If the bad guy has physical access, all is
> lost.
>
> === specifically
> If you want to defend against reboots to a boot CD, then all of memory
> is potential leak.
>
> http://citp.princeton.edu/research/memory/
>
> My personal favorite is when they actually move the RAM chips from one
> PC to another to get the data out of it.
>
> After removing power, they immediately spray freon (or something
> similarly cold) on the RAM chips to stabilize them, then move them to
> another PC and recover the content.
>
> I can't get the video to work right now, but here's a walk-thru with
> photos.
>
> I quote:
> ===
> We stored data in these memory modules, then cooled them, removed them
> from the computer, and placed them in a container of liquid nitrogen
> for an hour. After returning them to the computer, we found
> practically no information had been lost. (Using liquid nitrogen would
> be overkill for most attacks, since cheap, widely-available duster
> spray would adequately cool the chips.)
> ===
>
> Greg
>

I should clarify (because someone asked), the memory that I was talking
about wouldn't be allocatable until after the process that read it and
freed it exited.


-- 
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120116/ebfad31d/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[夏业添]

Hi,

Could you explain more about how the OS initialize the malloced pages? Or
which part of the kernel code can do thatThanks!

2012/1/12 Dave Hylands <dhylands@gmail.com>

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:53 AM, ??? <summerxyt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >    My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
> > memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such thing
> on
> > the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after
> that,
> > I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using fork()
> to
> > create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400 bytes char
> array
> > in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some memory to seek char
> 'a' in
> > a new one process or many new processes, but failed. All memory I
> malloced
> > was full of zero.
>
> Yeah - so if it were possible for one process to get information about
> another process like that you would have a security leak.
>
> >    As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
> believe
> > that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by other process,
> > and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test it? Or where
> can
> > I get related information?
>
> All pages allocated from the OS will be initially zero'd, however,
> once your process owns the page, if you filled it with Z's and then
> freed it and reallocated you might very weill get your Z's back
> instead of 0's. You'll never get data from another process though.
>
> --
> Dave Hylands
> Shuswap, BC, Canada
> http://www.davehylands.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120112/592330a6/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Greg Freemyer]

"???" <summerxyt@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>   My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
>memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such
>thing on
>the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after
>that,
>I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using fork()
>to
>create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400 bytes char
>array in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some memory to seek
>char
>'a' in a new one process or many new processes, but failed. All memory
>I
>malloced was full of zero.
>   As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
>believe that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by
>other
>process, and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test
>it? Or
>where can I get related information?
>   Thanks!
>_______________________________________________
>Kernelnewbies mailing list
>Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
>http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies

I guess you know what a zombie is?  Someone that is dead, but is still hanging around.

When a linux process dies, it first becomes a zombie and the parent process is signaled.

The parent process at that point can still do various things.  If the parent is a debugger, it can get all sorts of details from the zombie.

When the parent acknowledges the death of child signal, the zombie is really killed and removed from the system tables, etc.

But in my mind when the child process becomes a zombie it is dead and basically everything about the task/process is still maintained in memory.

To test this write a simple c program that initializes some ram then calls exit().

Then run it in a debugger like gdb and see what details you can get out while the program is in a zombie state.

Fyi: I haven't done this in years, so it may not be easy to actually do that.

Greg

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Rik van Riel]

On 01/11/2012 01:44 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:

> When a linux process dies, it first becomes a zombie and the parent process is signaled.
>
> The parent process at that point can still do various things.  If the parent is a debugger, it can get all sorts of details from the zombie.
>
> When the parent acknowledges the death of child signal, the zombie is really killed and removed from the system tables, etc.

The memory of a process is freed before it becomes a zombie.

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[夏业添]

Thanks!

I do not want to access other PAS when other process is alive, and it seems
impossible because each process has its own page table.

But after its death, some information might be left in the memory if the OS
does not clean the physical pages, I guess. When the OS load a binary
program, some physical pages are rewrited. I read it from one book that
the variable and array which are in the .bss and .data are directly loaded
into memory and will rewirte physical pages. So I decided to use malloc to
dynamically get memory and seek whether there is some information left in
such memory.


2012/1/12 beyond.hack <beyond.hack@gmail.com>

> Luk frnd..
> First of all.. U just cannt acess other PAS i.e.process address space via
> other process..
> Ex--malloc some memory n then free it twice..
> First tym it will b freed bt d nxt time u try to free it. U cant .. So it
> will report the illegal access to memory bcz now that adress is not in your
> pas..errors r handled by some compiler in a standard way..they may show
> some fixed area of memory when u try to access such areas of memory which
> are not allocated for ur process..
> Ex.gcc may show you glibc or give a  segv
>
> N
>
> Since we know that we r having virtual memory management.. So how r u
> going back to that only address...
> I tried to save the pointer value (obtained by malloc) by writing it in a
> file..n later on use it from that value. Bt
> cant initiallise a pointer by giving an virtual address n printing from
> there ..(i tried it getting errors)..
> Also..as soon as your first process is over...previous malloc'd address
> are mostly get corrupted bcz. Of the use by various other processes..
> On 11 Jan 2012 18:24, "???" <summerxyt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>    My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
>> memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such thing on
>> the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after that,
>> I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using fork() to
>> create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400 bytes char
>> array in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some memory to seek char
>> 'a' in a new one process or many new processes, but failed. All memory I
>> malloced was full of zero.
>>    As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
>> believe that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by other
>> process, and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test it? Or
>> where can I get related information?
>>    Thanks!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120112/b5060807/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Fredrick]

When you malloc a memory or mmap a MAP_ANON memory, it is virtually 
allocated. When you read or write to it, the process takes a page fault. 
The page fault handler zeroes those memory and hands it to the process. 
So I think there is no leak.

-Fredrick

On 01/11/2012 04:53 AM, ??? wrote:
> Hi,
>     My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
> memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such thing
> on the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after
> that, I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using
> fork() to create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400
> bytes char array in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some
> memory to seek char 'a' in a new one process or many new processes, but
> failed. All memory I malloced was full of zero.
>     As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
> believe that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by other
> process, and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test it?
> Or where can I get related information?
>     Thanks!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[beyond.hack]

Experts..
> As we know that in virtual memory, virtual pages are allocated for a
> process..and when that memory is used page fault occurs and then handler
> allocates a page frame i.e. Real physical memory..hence our small physical
> memory are able to handle bigger processes...
>
so a information, certainly comes to the "ram" atleast a time...

> So can we do something if we have something that can have DMA ???
> I am just guessing!!
> Plz do suggest..and correct me if i am wrong!!!
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120118/a4f2a118/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[夏业添]

Thanks?

It seems that the function do_page_fault() will finally call
fast_clear_page()<http://lxr.oss.org.cn/plain/source/arch/x86/lib/mmx_32.c#L125>
 or slow_zero_page()<http://lxr.oss.org.cn/plain/source/arch/x86/lib/mmx_32.c#L336>
to
zero a new physical page for a process. So calling malloc() cannot get a
page used by another process which is dead already.

The assemble language is difficult to me, so please tell me if I am wrong.

2012/1/18 Fredrick <fjohnber@zoho.com>

> When you malloc a memory or mmap a MAP_ANON memory, it is virtually
> allocated. When you read or write to it, the process takes a page fault.
> The page fault handler zeroes those memory and hands it to the process. So
> I think there is no leak.
>
> -Fredrick
>
>
> On 01/11/2012 04:53 AM, ??? wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>    My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
>> memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such thing
>> on the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after
>> that, I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using
>> fork() to create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400
>> bytes char array in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some
>> memory to seek char 'a' in a new one process or many new processes, but
>> failed. All memory I malloced was full of zero.
>>    As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
>> believe that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by other
>> process, and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test it?
>> Or where can I get related information?
>>    Thanks!
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.**org <Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org>
>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.**org/mailman/listinfo/**kernelnewbies<http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies>
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120119/0de8b764/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[SaNtosh kuLkarni]

am not sure about my answer but regarding kmalloc if i am going out of
context ..but when u do a* kmalloc it doesnt clear *the memory obtained and
still holds the prvious contents...what happens in that case ..and as far
as i know when u take the case of reparenting ....during process
termination  exit_mm() is called to release the mm_struct held by this
process. If no other process
is using this address space, if the address space is not shared?the
kernel then destroys it and also there is the senario of zombie exit...i
mean PDT remains after parent exits....


2012/1/19 ??? <summerxyt@gmail.com>

> Thanks?
>
> It seems that the function do_page_fault() will finally call
> fast_clear_page()<http://lxr.oss.org.cn/plain/source/arch/x86/lib/mmx_32.c#L125>
>  or slow_zero_page()<http://lxr.oss.org.cn/plain/source/arch/x86/lib/mmx_32.c#L336> to
> zero a new physical page for a process. So calling malloc() cannot get a
> page used by another process which is dead already.
>
> The assemble language is difficult to me, so please tell me if I am wrong.
>
> 2012/1/18 Fredrick <fjohnber@zoho.com>
>
>> When you malloc a memory or mmap a MAP_ANON memory, it is virtually
>> allocated. When you read or write to it, the process takes a page fault.
>> The page fault handler zeroes those memory and hands it to the process. So
>> I think there is no leak.
>>
>> -Fredrick
>>
>>
>> On 01/11/2012 04:53 AM, ??? wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>    My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
>>> memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such thing
>>> on the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after
>>> that, I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using
>>> fork() to create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400
>>> bytes char array in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some
>>> memory to seek char 'a' in a new one process or many new processes, but
>>> failed. All memory I malloced was full of zero.
>>>    As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
>>> believe that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by other
>>> process, and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test it?
>>> Or where can I get related information?
>>>    Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>>> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.**org <Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org>
>>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.**org/mailman/listinfo/**kernelnewbies<http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>
>


-- 
*Regards,
Santosh Kulkarni*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120119/c7ece2d8/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[SaNtosh kuLkarni]

sorry guys did not read tat properly..he is just referring to user
space....as far malloc is concerned it basically calls *brk*() and
*sbrk() * tand
they basically end up changing the location of thelocation of program break
which is nothing but  the end of the process's data segment so it has
nothing to do with u getting any info or any memory leaks...i mean not too
specific to PDT...or any such previously exited processes...

2012/1/19 SaNtosh kuLkarni <santosh.yesoptus@gmail.com>

> am not sure about my answer but regarding kmalloc if i am going out of
> context ..but when u do a* kmalloc it doesnt clear *the memory obtained
> and still holds the prvious contents...what happens in that case ..and as
> far as i know when u take the case of reparenting ....during process
> termination  exit_mm() is called to release the mm_struct held by this
> process. If no other process
> is using this address space, if the address space is not shared?the
> kernel then destroys it and also there is the senario of zombie exit...i
> mean PDT remains after parent exits....
>
>
> 2012/1/19 ??? <summerxyt@gmail.com>
>
>> Thanks?
>>
>> It seems that the function do_page_fault() will finally call
>> fast_clear_page()<http://lxr.oss.org.cn/plain/source/arch/x86/lib/mmx_32.c#L125>
>>  or slow_zero_page()<http://lxr.oss.org.cn/plain/source/arch/x86/lib/mmx_32.c#L336> to
>> zero a new physical page for a process. So calling malloc() cannot get a
>> page used by another process which is dead already.
>>
>> The assemble language is difficult to me, so please tell me if I am wrong.
>>
>> 2012/1/18 Fredrick <fjohnber@zoho.com>
>>
>>> When you malloc a memory or mmap a MAP_ANON memory, it is virtually
>>> allocated. When you read or write to it, the process takes a page fault.
>>> The page fault handler zeroes those memory and hands it to the process. So
>>> I think there is no leak.
>>>
>>> -Fredrick
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/11/2012 04:53 AM, ??? wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>    My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
>>>> memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about such thing
>>>> on the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it. And after
>>>> that, I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it, using
>>>> fork() to create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a 102400
>>>> bytes char array in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some
>>>> memory to seek char 'a' in a new one process or many new processes, but
>>>> failed. All memory I malloced was full of zero.
>>>>    As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
>>>> believe that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used by other
>>>> process, and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I test it?
>>>> Or where can I get related information?
>>>>    Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>>>> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.**org <Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org>
>>>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.**org/mailman/listinfo/**kernelnewbies<http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Regards,
> Santosh Kulkarni*
>
>


-- 
*Regards,
Santosh Kulkarni*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120119/8dbcc334/attachment.html 

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Fredrick]

Yes you are right.
Each architecture implements clear_page() differently. Some may just use 
memset. Some may use architecture specific instructions to perform the 
zero-ing faster.

I guess x86's fast_clear_page does that.

-Fredrick

On 01/18/2012 05:27 PM, ??? wrote:
> Thanks?
>
> It seems that the function do_page_fault() will finally call
> fast_clear_page()
> <http://lxr.oss.org.cn/plain/source/arch/x86/lib/mmx_32.c#L125> or
> slow_zero_page()
> <http://lxr.oss.org.cn/plain/source/arch/x86/lib/mmx_32.c#L336> to zero
> a new physical page for a process. So calling malloc() cannot get a page
> used by another process which is dead already.
>
> The assemble language is difficult to me, so please tell me if I am wrong.
>
> 2012/1/18 Fredrick <fjohnber at zoho.com <mailto:fjohnber@zoho.com>>
>
>     When you malloc a memory or mmap a MAP_ANON memory, it is virtually
>     allocated. When you read or write to it, the process takes a page
>     fault. The page fault handler zeroes those memory and hands it to
>     the process. So I think there is no leak.
>
>     -Fredrick
>
>
>     On 01/11/2012 04:53 AM, ??? wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>         My tutor asked me to test whether one process leaves information in
>         memory after it is dead. I tried to search some article about
>         such thing
>         on the Internet but there seems to be no one discuss about it.
>         And after
>         that, I tried to write some program in the User Mode to test it,
>         using
>         fork() to create lots of processes and filling char 'a' into a
>         102400
>         bytes char array in each process. Then I used malloc() to get some
>         memory to seek char 'a' in a new one process or many new
>         processes, but
>         failed. All memory I malloced was full of zero.
>         As the man page of malloc said:"The memory is not initialized", I
>         believe that the memory which was got by malloc() could be used
>         by other
>         process, and therefor information leakage exists. But how can I
>         test it?
>         Or where can I get related information?
>         Thanks!
>
>
>         _________________________________________________
>         Kernelnewbies mailing list
>         Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.__org
>         <mailto:Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org>
>         http://lists.kernelnewbies.__org/mailman/listinfo/__kernelnewbies <http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies

Does Linux process exist information leakage?

[Scott Lovenberg]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 20:53, Fredrick <fjohnber@zoho.com> wrote:

> When you malloc a memory or mmap a MAP_ANON memory, it is virtually
> allocated. When you read or write to it, the process takes a page fault.
> The page fault handler zeroes those memory and hands it to the process.
> So I think there is no leak.
>
> -Fredrick
>
>

Thanks for clearing that up.  I learned something today. :)

-- 
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120119/fd98b98a/attachment.html