Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:32:06 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...tec.com>, Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>, Emrah Demir <ed@...sec.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prefer kASLR over Hibernation On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote: > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote: > >> >> * Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Linus Torvalds >> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: >> > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Why is kASLR incompatible with hibernation? We can hibernate have >> > >> 4.3 kernel resume hibernation image of 4.2 kernel (on x86-64, and I >> > >> have patches for x86). Resuming kernel with different randomization >> > >> does not look that much different... >> > > >> > > Oh, I'd absolutely prefer to just allow kaslr together with >> > > hibernation if it actually works. >> > > >> > > Could the people who piped up to say that they actually use >> > > hibernation just try passing in the "kaslr" command line option on >> > > their machine, and see if it works for them? We could just remove the >> > > "no kaslr with hibername" code - or at least limit it to 32-bit for >> > > now.. >> > > >> > > Because that would be lovely. >> > >> > This is where our original investigation of having them coexist ended: >> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/15/180 >> > >> > To quote Rafael Wysocki: >> > > We're jumping from the boot kernel into the image kernel. The virtual address >> > > comes from the image kernel, but the boot kernel has to use it. The only way >> > > we can ensure that we'll jump to the right place is to pass the physical address >> > > in the header (otherwise we de facto assume that the virtual address of the >> > > target page frame will be the same in both the boot and the image kernels). >> > > >> > > The missing piece is that the code in swsusp_arch_resume() sets up temporary >> > > page tables to ensure that they won't be overwritten while copying the last >> > > remaining image kernel pages to the right page frames (those page tables >> > > have to be stored in page frames that are free from the kernel image perspective). >> > > >> > > But if the kernel address space is randomized, set_up_temporary_mappings() >> > > really should duplicate the existing layout instead of creating a new one from >> > > scratch. Otherwise, virtual addresses before set_up_temporary_mappings() may >> > > be different from the ones after it. >> >> So as I suggested it in the previous mail, the right solution would be to pass in >> the randomization seed via a new kasl_seed=xyz boot option, and thus have the same >> addresses as prior hibernation. >> >> That should make hibernation work as-is, with very little effort. >> >> Two details I can think of: >> >> 1) the new option has to be hidden from /proc/cmdline, due to: >> >> triton:~/tip> ll /proc/cmdline >> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Apr 6 23:45 /proc/cmdline >> >> 2) >> >> another detail is that the new boot option has to be checked in >> choose_kernel_location(), to make sure it's done at the right point during bootup. >> That's a good place to remove it from the boot options string as well. > > ... and I missed the biggest complication: to solve the chicken and egg problem > with software_resume() running very late during bootup, software_resume() should > probably kexec() the original kernel image, this time with the kaslr seed set in > the boot parameters. > > So it's two bootups... I'm not sure I get this part to be honest. The image kernel will use its own page tables with the original address space layout no matter what, so I'm not sure why it needs the seed. Also the loading of the image is based on PFNs and not on virtual addresses, so during resume all of the page frames used before hibernation will be populated with the same data regardless of the randomization. One of the weak points is the final jump, because it has to be done to the physical location of the image kernel's entry point even though the virtual addresses of it may differ between the boot and the image kernels. The seed is not needed for that, only the physical address of the entry point. The boot kernel doesn't have it today, though, because the virtual address of that is passed in the image header. That should not be too difficult to change, however. The second weak point is the temporary page tables setup in swsusp_arch_resume(), but as I said in the quoted message, that can be addressed by copying the existing page tables (of the boot kernel) instead of creating new ones from scratch - or by ensuring that the new ones will be laid out in exactly the same way. Again, the seed is not necessary here, because all of that is confined to the boot kernel only. Thanks, Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.