[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:47:26 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-x86_64@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
musl@...ts.openwall.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] x86: Implement arch_prctl(ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL)
to disable vsyscall
On 1/5/22 08:02, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Distributions struggle with changing the default for vsyscall
> emulation because it is a clear break of userspace ABI, something
> that should not happen.
>
> The legacy vsyscall interface is supposed to be used by libcs only,
> not by applications. This commit adds a new arch_prctl request,
> ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL, with one argument. If the argument is 0,
> executing vsyscalls will cause the process to terminate. Argument 1
> turns vsyscall back on (this is mostly for a largely theoretical
> CRIU use case).
>
> Newer libcs can use a zero ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL at startup to disable
> vsyscall for the process. Legacy libcs do not perform this call, so
> vsyscall remains enabled for them. This approach should achieves
> backwards compatibility (perfect compatibility if the assumption that
> only libcs use vsyscall is accurate), and it provides full hardening
> for new binaries.
>
> The chosen value of ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL should avoid conflicts
> with other x86-64 arch_prctl requests. The fact that with
> vsyscall=emulate, reading the vsyscall region is still possible
> even after a zero ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL is considered limitation
> in the current implementation and may change in a future kernel
> version.
>
> Future arch_prctls requests commonly used at process startup can imply
> ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL with a zero argument, so that a separate system
> call for disabling vsyscall is avoided.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
> Acked-by: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
> ---
> v3: Remove warning log message. Split out test.
> v2: ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL instead of ARCH_VSYSCALL_LOCKOUT. New tests
> for the toggle behavior. Implement hiding [vsyscall] in
> /proc/PID/maps and test it. Various other test fixes cleanups
> (e.g., fixed missing second argument to gettimeofday).
>
> arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c | 7 ++++++-
> arch/x86/include/asm/mmu.h | 6 ++++++
> arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h | 2 ++
> arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 7 +++++++
> 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c b/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c
> index fd2ee9408e91..6fc524b9f232 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c
> @@ -174,6 +174,9 @@ bool emulate_vsyscall(unsigned long error_code,
>
> tsk = current;
>
> + if (tsk->mm->context.vsyscall_disabled)
> + goto sigsegv;
> +
Is there a reason you didn't just change the check earlier in the
function to:
if (vsyscall_mode == NONE || current->mm->context.vsyscall_disabled)
Also, I still think the prctl should not be available if
vsyscall=emulate. Either we should fully implement it or we should not
implement. We could even do:
pr_warn_once("userspace vsyscall hardening request ignored because you
have vsyscall=emulate. Unless you absolutely need vsyscall=emulate,
update your system to use vsyscall=xonly.\n");
and thus encourage good behavior.
--Andy
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.
