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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3C1C43381 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:17:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BF6206B6 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:17:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726659AbfC1RRv (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:17:51 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:36584 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726029AbfC1RRv (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:17:51 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x2SHG5HO114897 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:17:50 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2rh1gvbhfk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:17:49 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:17:47 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:17:45 -0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x2SHHi7E53018724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:17:44 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52182A405F; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:17:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BCAA4060; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:17:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dhcp-9-31-103-153.watson.ibm.com (unknown [9.31.103.153]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:17:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Should mprotect(..., PROT_EXEC) be checked by IMA? From: Mimi Zohar To: Igor Zhbanov , Matthew Garrett , Kees Cook Cc: linux-integrity , Jann Horn Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:17:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <07347317-ee71-83c1-384a-0c3439980af7@omprussia.ru> References: <1552945715.8658.299.camel@linux.ibm.com> <452752df-98f9-c361-878a-5df84ab36847@omprussia.ru> <1552994559.4899.26.camel@linux.ibm.com> <84145490-6f70-214f-8241-42d556590240@omprussia.ru> <1553015134.4899.82.camel@linux.ibm.com> <1553167318.4899.382.camel@linux.ibm.com> <07347317-ee71-83c1-384a-0c3439980af7@omprussia.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19032817-4275-0000-0000-00000320A981 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19032817-4276-0000-0000-0000382F4879 Message-Id: <1553793463.8711.26.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-03-28_10:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=8 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903280114 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org [Cc'ing Kees] On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 10:59 +0300, Igor Zhbanov wrote: > On 21.03.2019 21:04, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 4:48 AM Igor Zhbanov wrote: > >> Along with disabling creating anonymous executable pages at all since > >> is is hardly needed for the system services for normal work. > > > > Is this true? Do no JIT compilers behave this way? > > Well, besides JIT I've scanned all /proc/PID/maps of my web-server and didn't > find any process with mapped anonymous executable pages. > > As for JIT I suppose we could use prctl or something else to allow having > anonymous executable pages. > > I'm pondering about some system-wide (or prosses subtree-wide) default > setting controlling whether it is allowed to have anonymous pages by default, > and then some mechanism to turn it on/off on a per-process bases. Perhaps > with some locking preventing reenabling after it was dropped. > > And what do you think about it? I just came across the grsecurity article on mprotect.[1]  Has anyone looked at it?  Would it make sense to make it a minor LSM? Mimi [1]https://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/mprotect.txt