[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:23:48 +0900
From: "AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: park jinbum <jinb.park7@...il.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: Introduction
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 04:06:02PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:06:31AM +0900, park jinbum wrote:
> > Hello All,
>
> Hi,
>
> > I'd like to contribute to kernel self protection project.
> > I've experienced ARM kernel, security solution on production.
> > (kernel memory protection, contents protection, ...)
> >
> > I'm interested in following topics.
> > - Move kernel stack to vmap area (done on x86, other archs still need it)
>
> FWIW, I'm looking at this for arm64 (and Takahiro-san is also looking at
> this area). Making the stacks virtually mapped is fairly trivial, but
> implementing reliable {under,over}flow handling is fairly involved.
>
> 32-bit ARM is also somewhat starved for vmalloc space, so ignoring the
> difficulties in exception handling changes, I'm not sure that's going to
> be widely deployable.
>
> I believe it should be possible to implement THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK for arm
> similarly to arm64, which would bring some benefit regardless.
>
> Takahiro-san, were you looking into that at all?
No, never.
I'm currently taking a quick look at PAX_MEMORY_STACKLEAK and
PAX_MEMORY_STRUCTLEAK (on both arm64 and x86 though arch-specific
portion of code is quite small).
-Takahiro AKASHI
> > - KASLR for ARM
>
> Given the small amount of VA space on 32-bit, and the potential of
> kernel addresses to be determined by other means, I'm not sure that
> there's much gain from this relative to the work involved.
>
> > - protect ARM vector table as fixed-location kernel target
>
> I'm not exactly sure what this means (I see it was taken from the KSPP
> todo list?). Kees -- did you have a specific idea here?
>
> On cores with VBAR, the vectors can be moved, so it might be possible to
> dynamically allocate them at a random position. Otherwise, I was under
> the impression that this was RO with DEBUG_RODATA selected.
>
> ... on that note, mandating DEBUG_RODATA for 32-bit ARM would be a good
> step forward.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
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.
