All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Daniel Cashman <dcashman@google.com>,
	Bhupesh SHARMA <bhupesh.linux@gmail.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Anatolij Gustschin <agust@denx.de>,
	Alistair Popple <alistair@popple.id.au>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Vitaly Bordug <vitb@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:41:56 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACi5LpOddY6WOz7S-fNEwSDLOoYFga-NKUOkCHtNLJ0puiNMOQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mvduz4wi.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> HI Michael,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>>> Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> powerpc: arch_mmap_rnd() uses hard-coded values, (23-PAGE_SHIFT) for
>>>> 32-bit and (30-PAGE_SHIFT) for 64-bit, to generate the random offset
>>>> for the mmap base address.
>>>>
>>>> This value represents a compromise between increased
>>>> ASLR effectiveness and avoiding address-space fragmentation.
>>>> Replace it with a Kconfig option, which is sensibly bounded, so that
>>>> platform developers may choose where to place this compromise.
>>>> Keep default values as new minimums.
>>>>
>>>> This patch makes sure that now powerpc mmap arch_mmap_rnd() approach
>>>> is similar to other ARCHs like x86, arm64 and arm.
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking at this, it's been on my TODO for a while.
>>>
>>> I have a half completed version locally, but never got around to testing
>>> it thoroughly.
>>
>> Sure :)
>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
>>>> index a8ee573fe610..b4a843f68705 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,38 @@ config MMU
>>>>       bool
>>>>       default y
>>>>
>>>> +config ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MIN
>>>> +       default 5 if PPC_256K_PAGES && 32BIT
>>>> +       default 12 if PPC_256K_PAGES && 64BIT
>>>> +       default 7 if PPC_64K_PAGES && 32BIT
>>>> +       default 14 if PPC_64K_PAGES && 64BIT
>>>> +       default 9 if PPC_16K_PAGES && 32BIT
>>>> +       default 16 if PPC_16K_PAGES && 64BIT
>>>> +       default 11 if PPC_4K_PAGES && 32BIT
>>>> +       default 18 if PPC_4K_PAGES && 64BIT
>>>> +
>>>> +# max bits determined by the following formula:
>>>> +#  VA_BITS - PAGE_SHIFT - 4
>>>> +#  for e.g for 64K page and 64BIT = 48 - 16 - 4 = 28
>>>> +config ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MAX
>>>> +       default 10 if PPC_256K_PAGES && 32BIT
>>>> +       default 26 if PPC_256K_PAGES && 64BIT
>>>> +       default 12 if PPC_64K_PAGES && 32BIT
>>>> +       default 28 if PPC_64K_PAGES && 64BIT
>>>> +       default 14 if PPC_16K_PAGES && 32BIT
>>>> +       default 30 if PPC_16K_PAGES && 64BIT
>>>> +       default 16 if PPC_4K_PAGES && 32BIT
>>>> +       default 32 if PPC_4K_PAGES && 64BIT
>>>> +
>>>> +config ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS_MIN
>>>> +       default 5 if PPC_256K_PAGES
>>>> +       default 7 if PPC_64K_PAGES
>>>> +       default 9 if PPC_16K_PAGES
>>>> +       default 11
>>>> +
>>>> +config ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS_MAX
>>>> +       default 16
>>>> +
>>>
>>> This is what I have below, which is a bit neater I think because each
>>> value is only there once (by defaulting to the COMPAT value).
>>>
>>> My max values are different to yours, I don't really remember why I
>>> chose those values, so we can argue about which is right.
>>
>> I am not sure how you derived these values, but I am not sure there
>> should be differences between 64-BIT x86/ARM64 and PPC values for the
>> MAX values.
>
> But your values *are* different to x86 and arm64.
>
> And why would they be the same anyway? x86 has a 47 bit address space,
> 64-bit powerpc is 46 bits, and arm64 is configurable from 36 to 48 bits.
>
> So your calculations above using VA_BITS = 48 should be using 46 bits.
>
> But if you fixed that, your formula basically gives 1/16th of the
> address space as the maximum range. Why is that the right amount?
>
> x86 uses 1/8th, and arm64 uses a mixture of 1/8th and 1/32nd (though
> those might be bugs).
>
> My values were more liberal, giving up to half the address space for 32
> & 64-bit. Maybe that's too generous, but my rationale was it's up to the
> sysadmin to tweak the values and they get to keep the pieces if it
> breaks.

I am not sure why would one want to use more than the practical limits
of 1/8th used by x86 - this causes additional burden of address space
fragmentation.

So we need to balance between the randomness increase and the address
space fragmentation.

>>> +config ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MAX
>>> +       # On 64-bit up to 32T of address space (2^45)
>>> +       default 27 if 64BIT && PPC_256K_PAGES   # 256K (2^18), = 45 - 18 = 27
>>> +       default 29 if 64BIT && PPC_64K_PAGES    # 64K  (2^16), = 45 - 16 = 29
>>> +       default 31 if 64BIT && PPC_16K_PAGES    # 16K  (2^14), = 45 - 14 = 31
>>> +       default 33 if 64BIT                     # 4K   (2^12), = 45 - 12 = 33
>>> +       default ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS_MAX
>
> I played with my values a bit and allowing 32T is a little bit nuts. It
> means you can actually end up with the adjusted ET_DYN_BASE *above* 32T,
> followed by the heap growing up, and the mmap base *below* 32T, growing
> down. Which is kinda fun, but definitely breaks a lot of assumptions.
>
> So limiting it to a max of 16T is probably more sensible.
>
> Anyway late here, will think about it some more over the weekend.

A user is always free to tweak the maximum values via specific Kconfig
+ defconfig combinations for their platforms, but why have such large
max values as default for say a embedded PPC64 board which only
supports say 16GB of DDR.

A default max of 33bits for such platforms might be an overkill, while
it might be fine for servers which might have greater DDR
availability.

Regards,
Bhupesh

  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-10 11:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-02  5:42 [PATCH 0/2] RFC: Adjust powerpc ASLR elf randomness Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02  5:42 ` [kernel-hardening] " Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02  5:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02  5:42   ` [kernel-hardening] " Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02  9:11   ` Balbir Singh
2017-02-02  9:11     ` [kernel-hardening] " Balbir Singh
2017-02-02 18:14     ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02 18:14       ` [kernel-hardening] " Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02 10:23   ` Michael Ellerman
2017-02-02 10:23     ` [kernel-hardening] " Michael Ellerman
2017-02-02 12:22     ` Balbir Singh
2017-02-02 12:22       ` [kernel-hardening] " Balbir Singh
2017-02-02 23:59       ` Michael Ellerman
2017-02-08 12:53     ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-08 12:53       ` [kernel-hardening] " Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-10 11:01       ` Michael Ellerman
2017-02-10 11:11         ` Bhupesh Sharma [this message]
2017-02-16  4:49           ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-24  7:32             ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-24  9:53               ` Michael Ellerman
2017-02-24  9:53                 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-02-02 14:25   ` Kees Cook
2017-02-02 14:25     ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2017-02-02 18:04     ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02 18:04       ` [kernel-hardening] " Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02  5:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: Redefine ELF_ET_DYN_BASE Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02  5:42   ` [kernel-hardening] " Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02  6:44 ` [PATCH 0/2] RFC: Adjust powerpc ASLR elf randomness Balbir Singh
2017-02-02  6:44   ` [kernel-hardening] " Balbir Singh
2017-02-02 18:21   ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02 18:21     ` [kernel-hardening] " Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02 14:21 ` Kees Cook
2017-02-02 14:21   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2017-02-02 18:08   ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02 18:08     ` [kernel-hardening] " Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02 19:19     ` Kees Cook
2017-02-02 19:19       ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2017-02-02 19:43       ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-02-02 19:43         ` [kernel-hardening] " Bhupesh Sharma

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=CACi5LpOddY6WOz7S-fNEwSDLOoYFga-NKUOkCHtNLJ0puiNMOQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=bhsharma@redhat.com \
    --cc=agraf@suse.com \
    --cc=agust@denx.de \
    --cc=alistair@popple.id.au \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=bhupesh.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=dcashman@android.com \
    --cc=dcashman@google.com \
    --cc=galak@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=mporter@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=oss@buserror.net \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=vitb@kernel.crashing.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.