Re: [RFC PATCH v9 03/13] mm: Add support for eXclusive Page Frame Ownership (XPFO)

[Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>]

On 4/18/19 8:34 AM, Khalid Aziz wrote:
> On 4/17/19 11:41 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:41 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> I don't think this type of NX goof was ever the argument for XPFO.
>>> The main argument I've heard is that a malicious user program writes a
>>> ROP payload into user memory (regular anonymous user memory) and then
>>> gets the kernel to erroneously set RSP (*not* RIP) to point there.
>>
>> Well, more than just ROP. Any of the various attack primitives. The NX
>> stuff is about moving RIP: SMEP-bypassing. But there is still basic
>> SMAP-bypassing for putting a malicious structure in userspace and
>> having the kernel access it via the linear mapping, etc.
>>
>>> I find this argument fairly weak for a couple reasons.  First, if
>>> we're worried about this, let's do in-kernel CFI, not XPFO, to
>>
>> CFI is getting much closer. Getting the kernel happy under Clang, LTO,
>> and CFI is under active development. (It's functional for arm64
>> already, and pieces have been getting upstreamed.)
>>
> 
> CFI theoretically offers protection with fairly low overhead. I have not
> played much with CFI in clang. I agree with Linus that probability of
> bugs in XPFO implementation itself is a cause of concern. If CFI in
> Clang can provide us the same level of protection as XPFO does, I
> wouldn't want to push for an expensive change like XPFO.
> 
> If Clang/CFI can't get us there for extended period of time, does it
> make sense to continue to poke at XPFO?

Any feedback on continued effort on XPFO? If it makes sense to have XPFO
available as a solution for ret2dir issue in case Clang/CFI does not
work out, I will continue to refine it.

--
Khalid