Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 15:39:13 -0800 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] x86/mm/KASLR: Remap GDTs at fixed location On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> * Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >> Not sure I fully understood and I don't want to miss an important point. Do >>>>> >> you mean making GDT (remapping and per-cpu) read-only and switch the >>>>> >> writeable flag only when we write to the per-cpu entry? >>>>> > >>>>> > What I mean is: write to the GDT through normal percpu access (or whatever the >>>>> > normal mapping is) but load a read-only alias into the GDT register. As long >>>>> > as nothing ever tries to write through the GDTR alias, no page faults will be >>>>> > generated. So we just need to make sure that nothing ever writes to it >>>>> > through GDTR. AFAIK the only reason the CPU ever writes to the address in >>>>> > GDTR is to set an accessed bit. >>>>> >>>>> A write is made when we use load_TR_desc (ltr). I didn't see any other yet. >>>> >>>> Is this write to the GDT, generated by the LTR instruction, done unconditionally >>>> by the hardware? >>>> >>> >>> That was my experience. I didn't look into details. Do you think we >>> could change something so that ltr never writes to the GDT? (just mark >>> the TSS entry busy). >> >> No, and I had the way this worked on 64-bit wrong. LTR requires an >> available TSS and changes it to busy. So here are my thoughts on how >> this should work: >> >> Let's get rid of any connection between this code and KASLR. Every >> time KASLR makes something work differently, a kitten turns all >> Schrödinger on us. This is moving the GDT to the fixmap, plain and >> simple. For now, make it one page per CPU and don't worry about the >> GDT limit. > > I am all for this change but that's more significant. > > Ingo: What do you think about that? > >> >> On 32-bit, we're going to have to make the fixmap GDT be read-write >> because making it read-only will break double-fault handling. >> >> On 64-bit, we can use your trick of temporarily mapping the GDT >> read-write every time we load TR, which should happen very rarely. >> Alternatively, we can reload the *GDT* every time we reload TR, which >> should be comparably slow. This is going to regress performance in >> the extremely rare case where KVM exits to a process that uses >> ioperm() (I think), but I doubt anyone cares. Or maybe we could >> arrange to never reload TR when GDT points at the fixmap by having KVM >> set the host GDT to the direct version and letting KVM's code to >> reload the GDT switch to the fixmap copy. >> >> If we need a quirk to keep the fixmap copy read-write, so be it. >> >> None of this should depend on KASLR. IMO it should happen unconditionally. >> > > I looked back at the fixmap, and I can see a way it could be done > (using NR_CPUS) like the other fixmap ranges. It would limit the > number of cpus to 512 (there is 2M memory left on fixmap on the > default configuration). That's if we never add any other fixmap on > x64. I don't know if it is an acceptable number and if the fixmap > region could be increased. (128 if we do your kvm trick, of course). > IIRC we need 4096 CPUs. But that 2M limit seems eminently fixable. I just tried sticking 4096 pages of nothing right near the top of the fixmap and the only problem I saw was that I had to move MODULES_END down a little bit. --Andy P.S. Let's do the move to the fixmap, read/write as a separate patch. That will make bisecting much easier.
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.