lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/4] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR.
From
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:20:05 -0800 Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> wrote:
>
>> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
>> @@ -1568,6 +1568,28 @@ static struct ctl_table vm_table[] = {
>> .mode = 0644,
>> .proc_handler = proc_doulongvec_minmax,
>> },
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS
>> + {
>> + .procname = "mmap_rnd_bits",
>> + .data = &mmap_rnd_bits,
>> + .maxlen = sizeof(mmap_rnd_bits),
>> + .mode = 0644,
>
> Is there any harm in permitting the attacker to read these values?
>
> And is there any benefit in permitting non-attackers to read them?

I'm on the fence. Things like kernel/randomize_va_space is 644. But
since I don't see a benefit in exposing them, let's make them all 600
instead -- it's a new interface, better to keep it narrower now.

>
>> + .proc_handler = proc_dointvec_minmax,
>> + .extra1 = &mmap_rnd_bits_min,
>> + .extra2 = &mmap_rnd_bits_max,
>> + },
>> +#endif
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS
>> + {
>> + .procname = "mmap_rnd_compat_bits",
>> + .data = &mmap_rnd_compat_bits,
>> + .maxlen = sizeof(mmap_rnd_compat_bits),
>> + .mode = 0644,
>> + .proc_handler = proc_dointvec_minmax,
>> + .extra1 = &mmap_rnd_compat_bits_min,
>> + .extra2 = &mmap_rnd_compat_bits_max,
>> + },
>> +#endif
>>
>> ...
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS
>> +int mmap_rnd_bits_min = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MIN;
>> +int mmap_rnd_bits_max = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MAX;
>> +int mmap_rnd_bits = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS;
>> +#endif
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS
>> +int mmap_rnd_compat_bits_min = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS_MIN;
>> +int mmap_rnd_compat_bits_max = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS_MAX;
>> +int mmap_rnd_compat_bits = CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS;
>
> These could be __read_mostly.
>
> If one believes in such things. One effect of __read_mostly is to
> clump the write-often stuff into the same cachelines and I've never
> been convinced that one outweighs the other...

The _min and _max values should be const, actually, since they're
build-time selected. The _bits could easily be __read_mostly, yeah.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-25 02:01    [W:0.132 / U:3.620 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site