From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752779AbaLSWTh (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:19:37 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177]:65311 "EHLO mail-lb0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751355AbaLSWTf (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:19:35 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 01:19:32 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Hector Marco , Pavel Emelyanov , Catalin Marinas , Heiko Carstens , Oleg Nesterov , Ingo Molnar , Anton Blanchard , Jiri Kosina , Russell King - ARM Linux , "H. Peter Anvin" , David Daney , Andrew Morton , Arun Chandran , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Martin Schwidefsky , Ismael Ripoll , Christian Borntraeger , Thomas Gleixner , Hanno =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6ck?= , Will Deacon , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Kees Cook , Reno Robert Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASLRv3: randomize_va_space=3 preventing offset2lib attack Message-ID: <20141219221932.GH6810@moon> References: <5489E6D2.2060200@upv.es> <5489FAAD.7000606@upv.es> <20141211221158.GS18807@outflux.net> <548B18AC.9@upv.es> <5494A0DF.10905@upv.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 02:11:37PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: ... > > > > Therefore, I can fix the current implementation (maintaining the > > randomize_va_space=2) by moving the PIE executable from the mmap base > > area to another one for x86*, ARM* and MIPS (as s390 and PowerPC do). > > But we shall agree that this increment in the page table is not a > > issue. Otherwise, the randomize_va_space=3 shall be considered. > > Wrt the vdso itself, though, there is an extra consideration: CRIU. I > *think* that the CRIU vdso proxying scheme will work even if the vdso > changes sizes and is adjacent to other mappings. Cyrill and/or Pavel, > am I right? At least that was the idea. I've been testing old vdso from rhel5 proxified to 3.x series where vvar segment is present, worked well. > I'm not fundamentally opposed to mapping the vdso just like any other > shared library. I still think that we should have an extra-strong > randomization mode in which all the libraries are randomized wrt each > other, though. For many applications, the extra page table cost will > be negligible.