Re: [PATCH] x86-64, vsyscalls: Rename UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to COMPAT_VSYSCALLS

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu>,
	x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
	Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@kerlabs.com>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, pageexec@freemail.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64, vsyscalls: Rename UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to COMPAT_VSYSCALLS
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:37:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110606123738.GA22375@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110606121937.GI7180@thunk.org>

* Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 12:24:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >  
> > -What:	CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS (x86_64)
> > +What:	CONFIG_COMPAT_VSYSCALLS (x86_64)
> >  When:	When glibc 2.14 or newer is ubitquitous.  Perhaps mid-2012.
> > -Why:	Having user-executable code at a fixed address is a security problem.
> > -	Turning off CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS mostly removes the risk but will
> > +Why:	Having user-executable syscall invoking code at a fixed addresses makes
> > +	it easier for attackers to exploit security holes.
> > +	Turning off CONFIG_COMPAT_VSYSCALLS mostly removes the risk but will
> >  	make the time() function slower on glibc versions 2.13 and below.
> >  Who:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu>
> 
> I'd suggest 2013 or 2014, at least.  People using Ubuntu LTS and 
> RHEL 6 are stuck back at glibc 2.11, and many of those users do 
> like being able to upgrade to newer kernels.  And there are 
> probably are a large number of static binaries around.
> 
> Maybe in 2012 or so we change the to be 'no' (and I'd suggest 
> adding a comment in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file that this 
> will also break static binaries).

There is no breakage of binaries at all, just a small slowdown for 
time() calls - but even that is fixable via a simple, backportable 
few-liner glibc patch.

Thanks,

	Ingo