[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8d84f00e-9c99-c48b-8b7e-0b49d6b32390@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:16:40 +0200
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>
Subject: Re: two potential randstruct improvements
On 2021-03-29 09:26, Jann Horn wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm currently in the middle of writing a blogpost on some Linux kernel
> stuff; while working on that I looked at the randstruct version in
> Linus' tree a bit and noticed two potential areas for improvement. I
> have no idea whether any of this (still) applies to the PaX/grsecurity
> version, but since the code originates from there, I figured I should
> also send this to the original authors.
>
>
[...]
> I don't know whether the amount of information leakage would be enough
> to actually determine the seed - and I'm not a cryptographer, I have
> no clue how much output from the RNG you'd actually need to recover
> the seed (and an attacker would not even be getting raw RNG output,
> but RNG output after additional modulo operations). But if the goal
> here is to ensure that an attacker without access to the binary kernel
> image can't determine struct layouts without a proper leak primitive,
> even if they know exactly from which sources and with what
> configuration the kernel was built, then I think this needs a
> cryptographically secure RNG.
Hi,
I just wanted to add something that stood out to me (assuming I'm
reading the code correctly):
It looks like the per-struct seed is constructed only based on a hash of
the struct name (using name_hash()), and anonymous structs use the name
"anonymous", which means that anonymous structs with the same number of
members will always be shuffled the same way (using full_shuffle() at
least). Which means that you can gain information about one struct and
potentially use it on another. It doesn't look like anonymous structs
being randomized is very common, a quick run against kernel/fork.c shows
there's only 3 cases and they all have different numbers of members (7,
59, and 182). In any case, to mitigate this, maybe include some details
of the struct (original member offsets/sizes/names) in the per-struct
seed derivation?
I definitely second the recommendation to use cryptographically secure
algorithms -- specifically, use a 256-bit HMAC that depends on the seed
instead of name_hash() and a cryptographically secure PRNG for ranval().
Vegard
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.
