From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>
Cc: "Perla, Enrico" <enrico.perla@intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>, "tytso@mit.edu" <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/entry/64: randomize kernel stack offset upon system call
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:20:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLbR0Tk6XEdCg+27bsc4+SKGwzNsV12imwjHnLmmpV0mA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612BA4BC57C1@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:52 PM Reshetova, Elena
<elena.reshetova@intel.com> wrote:
> Now back to our proposed countermeasures given that attacker has found a way to do
> a crafted overflow and overwrite:
>
> 1) pt_regs is not predictable, but can be discovered in ptrace-style scenario or cache-probing.
> If discovered, then attack succeeds as of now.
> 2) relative stack offset is not predictable and randomized, cannot be probed very easily via
> cache or ptrace. So, this is an additional hurdle on the attacker's way since stack is non-
> deterministic now.
> 3) nothing changed for this type of attack, given that attacker's goal is not to overwrite CS
> in adjusted pt_regs. If it is his goal, then it helps with that.
>
>
> Now summary:
>
> It would seem to me that:
>
> - regs->cs |= 3 on exit is a thing worth doing anyway, just because it is cheap, as Andy said, and it
> might make a positive difference in two out of three attack scenarios. Objections?
I would agree, let's just do this.
> - randomization of stack top is only worth doing in ptrace-blocked scenario.
> Do we have such scenarios left that people care about?
> Because if we do, then we know that there is a real attack vector that we close this way, otherwise not.
> This is actually interesting, because we need to remember to take ptrace into our overall
> kernel hardening threat model (smth that at least I haven't quite realized before) and evaluate every new
> feature (especially randomization ones) being robust against ptrace probing.
>
> - randomization after pt_regs only would make a difference in attack scenario "c", for which
> we don't yet have a proof of concept exploit or technique that would work (does not guarantee that
> attackers don't have the exploits ready through :( ).
> So, if we implement this, the "justification part" for the feature would be smth like "to make it
> harder for future possible stack-based exploits that utilize overflows", if/when someone find a new
> 'ala VLA' way of doing the controlled overflow.
> How do people feel about it? Is it worth having? I can work on the POC for this in direction that Andy
> outlined and can provide performance impact/etc., but it is good that we understand that we cannot
> provide a better justification for this feature at the moment unless someone is ready to share some
> new exploit technique with us.
I think this make sense. I do think, however, the work should be done
at syscall entry, though. Thoughts?
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-20 22:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-08 12:15 [RFC PATCH] Early version of thread stack randomization Elena Reshetova
2019-02-08 12:15 ` [RFC PATCH] x86/entry/64: randomize kernel stack offset upon system call Elena Reshetova
2019-02-08 13:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-08 13:20 ` Reshetova, Elena
2019-02-08 14:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-09 11:13 ` Reshetova, Elena
2019-02-09 18:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-02-11 6:39 ` Reshetova, Elena
2019-02-11 15:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-02-12 10:16 ` Perla, Enrico
2019-02-14 7:52 ` Reshetova, Elena
2019-02-19 14:47 ` Jann Horn
2019-02-20 22:20 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-02-21 6:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-02-21 13:20 ` Jann Horn
2019-02-21 15:49 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-02-20 22:15 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-20 22:53 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-21 23:29 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-27 11:03 ` Reshetova, Elena
2019-02-21 9:35 ` Perla, Enrico
2019-02-21 17:23 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-21 17:48 ` Perla, Enrico
2019-02-21 19:18 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-20 21:51 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-08 15:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-09 11:38 ` Reshetova, Elena
2019-02-09 12:09 ` Greg KH
2019-02-11 6:05 ` Reshetova, Elena
2019-02-08 16:34 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-02-20 22:03 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-08 21:28 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-11 12:47 ` Reshetova, Elena
2019-02-20 22:04 ` Kees Cook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAGXu5jLbR0Tk6XEdCg+27bsc4+SKGwzNsV12imwjHnLmmpV0mA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=elena.reshetova@intel.com \
--cc=enrico.perla@intel.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).