[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:13:14 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] fork: Add generic vmalloced stack support
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> If CONFIG_VMAP_STACK is selected, kernel stacks are allocated with
>>> vmalloc_node.
>> [...]
>>> static struct thread_info *alloc_thread_info_node(struct task_struct *tsk,
>>> int node)
>>> {
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
>>> + struct thread_info *ti = __vmalloc_node_range(
>>> + THREAD_SIZE, THREAD_SIZE, VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END,
>>> + THREADINFO_GFP | __GFP_HIGHMEM, PAGE_KERNEL,
>>> + 0, node, __builtin_return_address(0));
>>> +
>>
>> After spender gave some hints on IRC about the guard pages not working
>> reliably, I decided to have a closer look at this. As far as I can
>> tell, the idea is that __vmalloc_node_range() automatically adds guard
>> pages unless the VM_NO_GUARD flag is specified. However, those guard
>> pages are *behind* allocations, not in front of them, while a stack
>> guard primarily needs to be in front of the allocation. This wouldn't
>> matter if all allocations in the vmalloc area had guard pages behind
>> them, but if someone first does some data allocation with VM_NO_GUARD
>> and then a stack allocation directly behind that, there won't be a
>> guard between the data allocation and the stack allocation.
>
> I'm tempted to explicitly disallow VM_NO_GUARD in the vmalloc range.
> It has no in-tree users for non-fixed addresses right now.
What about the lack of pre-range guard page? That seems like a
critical feature for this. :)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security
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.
