Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Per-task PTI activation

[Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com>]

Is is possible to put per-task PTI control interface into cgroup or 
other interfaces?  Enabling/disabling per-task PTI should be a decision 
from the system administrator not the application itself.

On 2018/1/9 18:02, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:31:27AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> The dangerous scenario is someone exploting a buffer overflow, or
>> otherwise getting a network facing application to misbehave, and then
>> using these new attacks to assist in gaining privilege escalation.
> For most use cases sure. But for *some* use cases, if they can control
> of the application, you've already lost everything you had. Private keys,
> clear text traffic, etc. We're precisely talking about such applications
> where the userspace is as much important as the kernel, and where there's
> hardly anything left to lose once the application is cracked. However, a
> significant performance drop on the application definitely is a problem,
> first making it weaker when facing attacks, or even failing to deal with
> traffic peaks.
>
>> Googling seems to indicate that there is about one issue a year found in
>> haproxy.  So this is not an unrealistic concern for the case you
>> mention.
> I agree. But in practice, we had two exploitable bugs, one in 2002
> (overflow in the logs), and one in 2014 requiring a purposely written
> config which makes no pratical sense at all. Most other vulnerabilities
> involve freezes, occasionally crashes, though that's even more rare.
> And even with the two above, you just have one chance to try to exploit
> it, if you get your pointer wrong, it dies and you have to wait for the
> admin to restart it. In practice, seeing the process die is the worst
> nightmare of admins as the service simply stops. I'm not saying we don't
> want to defend them, we even chroot to an empty directory and drop
> privileges to mitigate such a risk. But when the intruder is in the
> process it's really too late.
>
>> So unless I am seeing things wrong this is a patchset designed to drop
>> your defensense on the most vulnerable applications.
> In fact it can be seen very differently. By making it possible for exposed
> but critical applications to share some risks with the rest of the system,
> we also ensure they remain strong for their initial purpose and against
> the most common types of attacks. And quite frankly we're not weakening
> much given the risks already involved by the process itself.
>
> What I'm describing represents a small category of processes in only
> certain environments. Some database servers will have the same issue.
> Imagine a Redis server for example, which normally is very fast and
> easily saturates whatever network around it. Some DNS providers may
> have the same problem when dealing with hundreds of thousands to
> millions of UDP packets each second (not counting attacks).
>
> All such services are critical in themselves, but the fact that we accept
> to let them share the risks with the system doesn't mean they should be
> running without the protections from the occasional operations guy just
> allowed to connect there to verify if logs are full and to retrive stats.
>
>> Disably protection on the most vunerable applications is not behavior
>> I would encourage.
> I'm not encouraging this behaviour either but right now the only option
> for performance critical applications (even if they are vulnerable) is
> to make the whole system vulnerable.
>
>> It seems better than disabling protection system
>> wide but only slightly.   I definitely don't think this is something we
>> want applications disabling themselves.
> In fact that's what I liked with the wrapper approach, except that it
> had the downside of being harder to manage in terms of administration
> and we'd risk to see it used everywhere by default. The arch_prctl()
> approach ensures that only applications where this is relevant can do
> it. In the case of haproxy, I can trivially add a config option like
> "disable-page-isolation" to let the admin enable it on purpose.
>
> But I suspect there might be some performance critical applications that
> cannot be patched, and that's where the wrapper could still provide some
> value.
>
>> Certainly this is something that should look at no-new-privs and if
>> no-new-privs is set not allow disabling this protection.
> I don't know what is "no-new-privs" and couldn't find info on it
> unfortunately. Do you have a link please ?
>
> Thanks!
> Willy