From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, timmurray@google.com,
minchan@google.com, sspatil@google.com, lokeshgidra@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a new sysctl knob: unprivileged_userfaultfd_user_mode_only
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 11:03:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202005200921.2BD5A0ADD@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200520045938.GC26186@redhat.com>
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:59:38AM -0400, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:54:03PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:52:34PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:26:32PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > > > This sysctl can be set to either zero or one. When zero (the default)
> > > > the system lets all users call userfaultfd with or without
> > > > UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY, modulo other access controls. When
> > > > unprivileged_userfaultfd_user_mode_only is set to one, users without
> > > > CAP_SYS_PTRACE must pass UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY to userfaultfd or the API
> > > > will fail with EPERM. This facility allows administrators to reduce
> > > > the likelihood that an attacker with access to userfaultfd can delay
> > > > faulting kernel code to widen timing windows for other exploits.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
> > >
> > > The approach taken looks like a hard-coded security policy.
> > > For example, it won't be possible to set the sysctl knob
> > > in question on any sytem running kvm. So this is
> > > no good for any general purpose system.
Not all systems run unprivileged KVM. :)
> > > What's wrong with using a security policy for this instead?
> >
> > In fact I see the original thread already mentions selinux,
> > so it's just a question of making this controllable by
> > selinux.
>
> I agree it'd be preferable if it was not hardcoded, but then this
> patchset is also much simpler than the previous controlling it through
> selinux..
>
> I was thinking, an alternative policy that could control it without
> hard-coding it, is a seccomp-bpf filter, then you can drop 2/2 as
> well, not just 1/6-4/6.
Err, did I miss a separate 6-patch series? I can't find anything on lore.
>
> If you keep only 1/2, can't seccomp-bpf enforce userfaultfd to be
> always called with flags==0x1 without requiring extra modifications in
> the kernel?
Please no. This is way too much overhead for something that a system
owner wants to enforce globally. A sysctl is the correct option here,
IMO. If it needs to be a per-userns sysctl, that would be fine too.
> Can't you get the feature party with the CAP_SYS_PTRACE capability
> too, if you don't wrap those tasks with the ptrace capability under
> that seccomp filter?
>
> As far as I can tell, it's unprecedented to create a flag for a
> syscall API, with the only purpose of implementing a seccomp-bpf
> filter verifying such flag is set, but then if you want to control it
> with LSM it's even more complex than doing it with seccomp-bpf, and it
> requires more kernel code too. We could always add 2/2 later, such
> possibility won't disappear, in fact we could also add 1/6-4/6 later
> too if that is not enough.
>
> If we could begin by merging only 1/2 from this new series and be done
> with the kernel changes, because we offload the rest of the work to
> the kernel eBPF JIT, I think it'd be ideal.
I'd agree that patch 1 should land, as it appears to be required for any
further policy considerations. I'm still a big fan of a sysctl since
this is the kind of thing I would absolutely turn on globally for all my
systems.
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-20 18:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-23 0:26 [PATCH 0/2] Control over userfaultfd kernel-fault handling Daniel Colascione
2020-04-23 0:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] Add UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY Daniel Colascione
2020-07-24 14:28 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-07-24 14:46 ` Lokesh Gidra
2020-07-26 10:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-04-23 0:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] Add a new sysctl knob: unprivileged_userfaultfd_user_mode_only Daniel Colascione
2020-05-06 19:38 ` Peter Xu
2020-05-07 19:15 ` Jonathan Corbet
2020-05-20 4:06 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2020-05-08 16:52 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-05-08 16:54 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-05-20 4:59 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2020-05-20 18:03 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2020-05-20 19:48 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2020-05-20 19:51 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2020-05-20 20:17 ` Lokesh Gidra
2020-05-20 21:16 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2020-07-17 12:57 ` Jeffrey Vander Stoep
2020-07-23 17:30 ` Lokesh Gidra
2020-07-24 0:13 ` Nick Kralevich
2020-07-24 13:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-08-06 0:43 ` Nick Kralevich
2020-08-06 5:44 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-08-17 22:11 ` Lokesh Gidra
2020-09-04 3:34 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2020-09-05 0:36 ` Lokesh Gidra
2020-09-19 18:14 ` Nick Kralevich
2020-07-24 14:01 ` [PATCH 0/2] Control over userfaultfd kernel-fault handling Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-07-24 14:41 ` Lokesh Gidra
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=202005200921.2BD5A0ADD@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dancol@google.com \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lokeshgidra@google.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab+samsung@kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=minchan@google.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=shli@fb.com \
--cc=sspatil@google.com \
--cc=timmurray@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=yzaikin@google.com \
/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).