[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm: restrict access to /proc/slabinfo
    On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov <> wrote:
    > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 18:13 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
    >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov <> wrote:
    >> >> and
    >> >> concluded that it's not worth it doesn't really protect from anything
    >> >
    >> > Closing only slabinfo doesn't add any significant protection against
    >> > kernel heap exploits per se, no objections here.
    >> >
    >> > But as said in the desciption, the reason for this patch is not protecting
    >> > against exploitation heap bugs.  It is a source of infoleaks of kernel
    >> > and userspace activity, which should be forbidden to non-root users.
    >> Last time we discussed this, the 'extra protection' didn't seem to be
    >> significant enough to justify disabling an useful kernel debugging
    >> interface by default.
    >> What's different about the patch now?
    > The exploitation you're talking about is an exploitation of kernel heap
    > bugs.  Dan's previous "make slabinfo 0400" patch tried to complicate
    > attacker's life by hiding information about how many free object are
    > left in the slab.  With this information an attacker may compute how he
    > should spray the slab to position slab object to increase his chances of
    > overwriting specific memory areas - pointers, etc.
    > I don't speak about how much/whether closing slabinfo complicates this
    > task, though.  My idea is orthogonal to the Dan's idea.  I claim that
    > with 0444 slabinfo any user may get information about in-system activity
    > that he shouldn't learn.  In short, one may learn precisely when other
    > user reads directory contents, opens files, how much files there are in
    > the specific _private_ directory, how much files _private_ ecryptfs or
    > fuse mount point contains, etc.  This breaks user's assumption that
    > the number of files in a private directory is a private information.
    > There are a bit more thoughts in the patch description.

    Yes, I read your patch description and I think it's convincing enough
    to warrant a config option but not changing the default.

    However, if the encryptfs and infoleaks really are serious enough to
    hide /proc/slabinfo, I think you should consider switching over to
    kmalloc() instead of kmem_cache_alloc() to make sure nobody can
    gain access to the information. Or add a SLAB_ANON flag for
    kmem_cache_create() that forces SLUB cache merging to existing

    >> >> and causes harm to developers.
    >> >
    >> > One note: only to _kernel_ developers.  It means it is a strictly
    >> > debugging feature, which shouldn't be enabled in the production systems.
    >> It's pretty much _the_ interface for debugging kernel memory leaks in
    >> production systems and we ask users for it along with /proc/meminfo
    >> when debugging many memory management related issues. When we
    >> temporarily dropped /proc/slabinfo with the introduction of SLUB, people
    >> complained pretty loudly.
    > Could you point to the discussion, please?  I cannot find the patch for
    > 0400 slabinfo even in the linux-history repository.

    We dropped the whole file for SLUB:

    [ I didn't find the original discussion that motivated the above
    patch but it should be somewhere in LKML archives around
    that time. ]

    Making it root-only will have pretty much the same kind of
    out-of-the-box behavior.

    >> I'd be willing to consider this patch if it's a config option that's not enabled
    >> by default; otherwise you need to find someone else to merge the patch.
    >> You can add some nasty warnings to the Kconfig text to scare the users
    >> into enabling it. ;-)
    > How do you see this CONFIG_ option?  CONFIG_PROCFS_COMPAT_MODES (or _PERMS),
    > defaults to Y?  If we find more procfs files with dangerous permissions,
    > we may move it under "ifndef CONFIG_PROCFS_COMPAT_PERMS".

    I guess CONFIG_RESTRICT_PROCFS type of thing makes most sense
    since the problem is not only about SLAB. If you want to make it slab-only
    config option, I'm fine with that too.

    Please note that you need to restrict sysfs files for SLUB as well.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-19 18:13    [W:0.026 / U:31.840 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site