From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576F4C4360F for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB1620830 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725990AbfDCMLj (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 08:11:39 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:59510 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725956AbfDCMLj (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 08:11:39 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x33C5obh100937 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 08:11:37 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2rmvbh8wcu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 08:11:37 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 13:11:35 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 3 Apr 2019 13:11:32 +0100 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x33CBVHX48890098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:11:31 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028F7A4057; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:11:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC50A4051; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:11:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.94.125]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:11:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Should mprotect(..., PROT_EXEC) be checked by IMA? From: Mimi Zohar To: Matthew Garrett , Igor Zhbanov Cc: Stephen Smalley , Kees Cook , Casey Schaufler , Paul Moore , John Johansen , linux-integrity , Jann Horn , linux-security-module Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 08:11:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1552945715.8658.299.camel@linux.ibm.com> <452752df-98f9-c361-878a-5df84ab36847@omprussia.ru> <1552994559.4899.26.camel@linux.ibm.com> <84145490-6f70-214f-8241-42d556590240@omprussia.ru> <1553015134.4899.82.camel@linux.ibm.com> <1553167318.4899.382.camel@linux.ibm.com> <07347317-ee71-83c1-384a-0c3439980af7@omprussia.ru> <1553793463.8711.26.camel@linux.ibm.com> <92718382-8669-748f-10d8-02fa21225210@omprussia.ru> <1553857187.9420.49.camel@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19040312-4275-0000-0000-00000323CB7F X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19040312-4276-0000-0000-00003832D25F Message-Id: <1554293478.7309.54.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-04-03_07:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904030084 Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 15:31 -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 5:50 AM Igor Zhbanov wrote: > > I want to be sure that no unsigned code page could be executed. So exploits > > could only be of ROP kind and not being able to download any extra code > > from their servers. That's why I found that disabling of anonymous executable > > pages could be useful for that (as well as disabling of making executable > > pages writable to modify already mapped code). In conjunction with IMA it > > should guarantee that no untrusted code could be executed. > > Remember that many interpreted languages allow execution of code > provided to them on the command line (eg, python -c) and also grant > access to arbitrary syscalls, so there's still no guarantee that > you're only executing trusted code. Interpreters are a known concern, as Yves-Alexis Perez pointed out in his LSS-2018 Europe talk[1]. Mimi [1] https://events.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Linu x-Kernel-Security-Contributions-by-ANSSI-Yves-Alexis-Perez-ANSSI.pdf