[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: stop breaking dosemu (Re: x86/kconfig/32: Rename CONFIG_VM86 and default it to 'n')
On 2015-09-03 12:34, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> 03.09.2015 18:44, Austin S Hemmelgarn пишет:
>> On 2015-09-03 08:15, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>>> 03.09.2015 15:11, Austin S Hemmelgarn пишет:
>>>> On 2015-09-02 17:53, Stas Sergeev wrote:
[... trimmed for brevity ...]
>>>>> I don't think the attack scenario was satisfactory explained.
>>>>> IIRC you only said that
>>>>> ---
>>>>> The mark_screen_rdonly thing is still kind of scary. It changes PTEs
>>>>> on arbitrary mappings behind the vm's back.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Just go ahead and remove mark_screen_rdonly, big deal.
>>>>> Is this all of the threat?
>>>>> Or do we treat _every_ syscall as the potential attack target?
>>>> Anything that messes with the VM subsystem (doubly if it does so without actually calling into the VM subsystem) is a potential target
>>> ... and should be removed.
>>> Remove mark_screen_rdonly hack.
>>>> as is anything that messes with execution mode or privilege
>>>> level (as in, possibly messes with which ring (or whatevere equivalent metaphor other processors use) execution is happening in). This does potentially all three (depending on how it's called). Just
>>>> because there are no known working exploits doesn't mean it's not possible, and in the case of this code, I'd say there is almost certainly some way to exploit it either to crash the system or gain
>>>> root-equivalent privileges.
>>> Please be specific, show the dangerous code, we'll then remove it
>>> or fix it.
>> The problem is we don't _know_ what could be exploited in there. There is no way to know for certain without a full audit of the code
> As was indicated in this thread already:
> Brian Gerst recently audited it:
> ---
> That's
> hopefully in much better shape now, though.
> ---
By audit, I don't mean just one person trying to make it more
maintainable and fixing any bugs he found, I mean a team of people
actively trying to make it break in every way imaginable. I'd be
particularly interested to see how it reacts to being hit from multiple
cores concurrently with trinity.
>> We should not however, wait to disable something by default that (probably) less than 1% of the people who are running Linux on systems that can even use this are actually using
> I am puzzled with this "probably".
> Given that ubuntu and debian do provide it, and that (unmaintained)
> SF page shows a few hundreds of downloads per week, how have you calculated
> the probability of its user base being below 1% of all linux users?
> Please provide more details so that I can double-check.
A few hundred downloads per week, as compared to tens of millions of
people using Linux worldwide (rough guess, although probably
conservative), with 10% of the Linux users using 32-bit x86 (again,
another rough guess, although this one is more generous), still works
out to around 1%. It's not possible to get exact numbers for this, and
downloads from the SF page also happen for the automated build testing
that most modern distributions do these days and a number of reasons
other than people using it.
>> until someone
>> demonstrates a workable exploit. Security is not just a reactionary endeavor, you need to be proactive about it as well. This means minimizing the attack surface whenever possible (and yes, this an
>> potential attack vector, regardless of whether there are known workable exploits or not).
> There are ways to minimize the risk: just remove the bloat, then
> see what remains.
> If you leave the bloat and just call it "dangerous", people will
> start disabling it, because _then_ it will really be an unmaintained
> attack target. So what you propose, is the worst solution, not the best.
> It will threaten the current vm86() users instead of doing them a
> favour by cleaning and fixing the code, and they will start looking
> into abandoning it.
As of right now, the only open-source project that I know of that is
actually actively used by people on new kernels that uses vm86 is dosemu
(and the forked dosemu2). the only other open source user of vm86()
that I know of is v86d, which is no longer needed except on ancient
hardware with old kernels. And as far as proprietary code goes, they
need to pull their heads out of DOS, realize that sane people use
protected or long mode for modern software, and get on with their lives.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't improve the code, but that we need to
provide the option to turn this off at runtime. Just one program that
isn't used by a large segment of the community depending on something is
not a good reason to make everyone have it turned on.

There are servers out there that have this enabled and _never_ use it at
all, having a system call like this one usable but unused is a potential
security hole, period, irrespective of the quality of the code the
syscall executes.

As for abandoning it, that is happening already, 32-bit x86 systems are
becoming more and more difficult to find, and it's not supported at all
on 64-bit kernels.
>> What has been proposed follows the existing convention on Linux (don't break userspace, and provide the option to people who actually care about their systems being secure to turn it off), the current
>> proposal is to make it default to on in the defconfig, and have the sysctl default to leaving it enabled.
>> On top of this, vm86 has a set of very specific niche use cases, most syscalls like this (AIO, bpf(), seccomp(), {m,f}advise(), etc) can only be turned on and off by completely rebuilding the kernel.
> "on and off"? Nice, but they are On by default (except for bpf()).
> So the fact that they have no runtime knob doesn't look like a big
> surprise.
Most of those (other than seccomp) are used almost exclusively in server
applications, and in the case of AIO, it is possible to prevent anything
from using it at runtime, but this can't be sanely relayed to any
applications that use it (bonus points if you can figure out how to stop
everyone from using it and why applications can't easily detect this).
>> This lets you turn this on or off at runtime.
> With a big warning that "it is an attack surface and less than
> 1% of people use it, please don't touch"? No thankyou.
I'm not saying that such a warning should be put in, and based on the
backlash that the original change that sparked this thread got, nothing
like that is going to be put in, but there is no reason to not be able
to enable/disable it at runtime. Most people who are using desktop
systems are not going to inherently know if they need it or not until
they do need it, and unlike many of the other syscalls that can be
disabled, many people who are likely to be using it aren't the type who
are comfortable compiling their own kernel.
> I'll be looking into testing and sending the patch that removes
> mark_screen_rdonly. Maybe then this thread will shift a bit from
> guesses and assumptions.
My statement that there is a potential security risk inherent in vm86 is
not a guess or assumption, it's a fact. Every single way that user code
can call into the kernel is a potential attack vector, period,
irrespective of what it does. You can't say with 100% certainty that
something is not a possible attack vector unless it isn't there to begin
with. While disabling it at runtime is not the best option from a
security standpoint, it makes it a much more difficult to even try to
exploit the code.

[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-03 21:01    [W:0.107 / U:18.152 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site