From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94BD5C433F5 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:42:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=z6l7UGWaqpmUp3/2BrDEHBn1qGt3nJpYMySwJmd5uFA=; b=e3cYhSvTP/KyMF aVoecF6Es/JQWtaRSboZQCFXqjqsOvwMXa3G5Z5xAILOX+yJS2CRLUcXqGPkfbnFtlaDWT5liLVAC Q1OOShUYLou9Sd8qyRFqGvBefe4lQHQP0lNaVp0sI8vUAIerigmSO1S1n7FARV4g7HnpJfOtl/cZr 9tyzcWKMF42evHphMznYzG1l5LG5NT3rB8dLSbl4U3H6Jaw5sn6i+ysAyLNKKKNgghaVO2LIyck5N u/k5FyQRU+F3WLqjHTlB7jjuFiJ2CX7lzDgi2mxQwirKSVFovd7pnGp+rNeLTZAX0ExCp+ntBX7vI C8xkYYron4BZtYfnoDQw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nhaoP-00EVD1-FL; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:41:49 +0000 Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nhaoM-00EVBU-9h for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:41:47 +0000 Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id n8so5553494plh.1 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:41:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=7JRw6mNztMXZ06DOT43AeVGnBVZ54ZjCu5voH5Wt+y4=; b=DkcqPXe34K3PAhGnkPTX+ibi5dB0a2z7iquzGv/EAQKFz2t1gbypfJCkAfbaR50QG4 IsNm8YHG2VZIf/ZdRMJs2j/3wx/JobsKD94qawhcAqi6i3MReh1n5BtKRHlzGm3NA+bj zu2iC+BtGtQKoLhBDZQaC8EwyYyQkVmsJdNII= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=7JRw6mNztMXZ06DOT43AeVGnBVZ54ZjCu5voH5Wt+y4=; b=vcf+mj4XRzXQJW5acGscCPK1p/4+PTuDZh9egCxiftgSPEiKHZp/eBmsLtcvwAruXs BR8vf54Q0DoS3skDHBfwUYpwZEcpAF0d5o5QOFgio6TmafAMw2mt1remATlidn+zDJYj VEq5IdIfZ5QouKDkq6r+DZYe35TilE0QU+Gd8PaOtg4rwcKy5ZnpbstqlowXQBR2AXi4 STzwO5PKMciZKUXIN1FvqpwaP5AF0diUbn4RO49X7Cuvdyr7yOp0cBAefogdXjzQ0RbR y4UHx1pJvIf8FsRxvd9eeq0QOBFbBGeN+ryaZ+k3ozzV6dhSe84YiMCBOg1QEHH46Auf uvCg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533yD236vWxZzHvh8NBuRbd/cBGz3iLZaP7qZ1U/7XICAAxryPON p8Jl42zwxVqV7pbVMMyzrWY8qw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzvJsBMz4TF2Ld0nZq3b3BGx5UhBL6r5l9SjnBtlfqWPBALbFZyZbFepVsc1TYIRd/JPiI0pw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c20a:b0:1d7:4cd5:ac82 with SMTP id e10-20020a17090ac20a00b001d74cd5ac82mr2242262pjt.212.1650562904943; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n64-20020a622743000000b0050acf41bde9sm5885926pfn.117.2022.04.21.10.41.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:41:43 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Topi Miettinen , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Lennart Poettering , Zbigniew =?utf-8?Q?J=C4=99drzejewski-Szmek?= , Will Deacon , Alexander Viro , Eric Biederman , Szabolcs Nagy , Mark Brown , Jeremy Linton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-abi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, Jann Horn , Salvatore Mesoraca , Igor Zhbanov Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] mm, arm64: In-kernel support for memory-deny-write-execute (MDWE) Message-ID: <202204211030.B0093CC14@keescook> References: <20220413134946.2732468-1-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <202204141028.0482B08@keescook> <202204201610.093C9D5FE8@keescook> <202204210941.4318DE6E8@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220421_104146_365386_6E6D7E14 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 25.79 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 06:24:21PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 09:42:23AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 04:35:15PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > Do we want the "was PROT_WRITE" or we just reject mprotect(PROT_EXEC) if > > > the vma is not already PROT_EXEC? The latter is closer to the current > > > systemd approach. The former allows an mprotect(PROT_EXEC) if the > > > mapping was PROT_READ only for example. > > > > > > I'd drop the "was PROT_WRITE" for now if the aim is a drop-in > > > replacement for BPF MDWE. > > > > I think "was PROT_WRITE" is an important part of the defense that > > couldn't be done with a simple seccomp filter (which is why the filter > > ended up being a problem in the first place). > > I would say "was PROT_WRITE" is slightly more relaxed than "is not > already PROT_EXEC". The seccomp filter can't do "is not already > PROT_EXEC" either since it only checks the mprotect() arguments, not the > current vma flags. > > So we have (with sub-cases): > > 1. Current BPF filter: > > a) mmap(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC); // fails > > b) mmap(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC); > mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC|PROT_BTI); // fails > > c) mmap(PROT_READ); > mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC); // fails > > d) mmap(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE); > mprotect(PROT_READ); > mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC); // fails > > 2. "is not already PROT_EXEC": > > a) mmap(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC); // fails > > b) mmap(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC); > mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC|PROT_BTI); // passes > > c) mmap(PROT_READ); > mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC); // fails > > d) mmap(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE); > mprotect(PROT_READ); > mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC); // fails > > 3. "is or was not PROT_WRITE": > > a) mmap(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC); // fails > > b) mmap(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC); > mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC|PROT_BTI); // passes > > c) mmap(PROT_READ); > mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC); // passes > > d) mmap(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE); > mprotect(PROT_READ); > mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC); // fails [edited above to show each case] restated what was already summarized: Problem is 1.b. 2 and 3 solve it. 3 is more relaxed (c passes). > If we don't care about 3.c, we might as well go for (2). I don't mind, > already went for (3) in this series. I think either of them would not be > a regression on MDWE, unless there is some test that attempts 3.c and > expects it to fail. I should stop arguing for a less restrictive mode. ;) It just feels weird that the combinations are API-mediated, rather than logically defined: I can do PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC with mmap but not mprotect under 2. As opposed to saying "the vma cannot be executable if it is or ever was writable". I find the latter much easier to reason about as far as the expectations of system state. So, I'd still prefer 3, as that was the _goal_ of the systemd MDWE seccomp filter, but yes, 2 does provide the same protection while allowing BTI. -- Kees Cook _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel