From: "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@intel.com>
To: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"nnk@google.com" <nnk@google.com>,
"jeffv@google.com" <jeffv@google.com>,
"salyzyn@android.com" <salyzyn@android.com>,
"dcashman@android.com" <dcashman@android.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] [RFC] Introduce mmap randomization
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:17:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <476DC76E7D1DF2438D32BFADF679FC560127815C@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160726214453.GN4541@io.lakedaemon.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Cooper [mailto:jason@lakedaemon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 2:45 PM
> To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@intel.com>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; kernel-
> hardening@lists.openwall.com; akpm@linux-foundation.org;
> keescook@chromium.org; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; nnk@google.com;
> jeffv@google.com; salyzyn@android.com; dcashman@android.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Introduce mmap randomization
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 09:06:30PM +0000, Roberts, William C wrote:
> > > From: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org [mailto:owner-linux-mm@kvack.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Jason Cooper On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:13:23PM +0000,
> > > Roberts, William C wrote:
> > > > > > From: Jason Cooper [mailto:jason@lakedaemon.net] On Tue, Jul
> > > > > > 26,
> > > > > > 2016 at 11:22:26AM -0700, william.c.roberts@intel.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Performance Measurements:
> > > > > > > Using strace with -T option and filtering for mmap on the
> > > > > > > program ls shows a slowdown of approximate 3.7%
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it would be helpful to show the effect on the resulting object
> code.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean the maps of the process? I have some captures for
> > > > > whoopsie on my Ubuntu system I can share.
> > >
> > > No, I mean changes to mm/mmap.o.
> >
> > Sure I can post the objdump of that, do you just want a diff of old vs new?
>
> Well, I'm partial to scripts/objdiff, but bloat-o-meter might be more familiar to
> most of the folks who you'll be trying to convince to merge this.
Ahh I didn't know there were tools for this, thanks.
>
> But that's the least of your worries atm. :-/ I was going to dig into mmap.c to
> confirm my suspicions, but Nick answered it for me.
> Fragmentation caused by this sort of feature is known to have caused problems
> in the past.
I don't know of any mmap randomization done in the past like this. Only the ASLR stuff, which
has had known issues on 32 bit address spaces.
>
> I would highly recommend studying those prior use cases and answering those
> concerns before progressing too much further. As I've mentioned elsewhere,
> you'll need to quantify the increased difficulty to the attacker that your patch
> imposes. Personally, I would assess that first to see if it's worth the effort at all.
Yes agreed.
>
> > > > > One thing I didn't make clear in my commit message is why this
> > > > > is good. Right now, if you know An address within in a process,
> > > > > you know all offsets done with mmap(). For instance, an offset
> > > > > To libX can yield libY by adding/subtracting an offset. This is
> > > > > meant to make rops a bit harder, or In general any mapping
> > > > > offset mmore difficult to
> > > find/guess.
> > >
> > > Are you able to quantify how many bits of entropy you're imposing on
> > > the attacker? Is this a chair in the hallway or a significant
> > > increase in the chances of crashing the program before finding the
> > > desired address?
> >
> > I'd likely need to take a small sample of programs and examine them,
> > especially considering That as gaps are harder to find, it forces the
> > randomization down and randomization can Be directly altered with
> > length on mmap(), versus randomize_addr() which didn't have this
> > restriction but OOM'd do to fragmented easier.
>
> Right, after the Android feedback from Nick, I think you have a lot of work on
> your hands. Not just in design, but also in developing convincing arguments
> derived from real use cases.
>
> thx,
>
> Jason.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-02 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-26 18:22 [PATCH] [RFC] Introduce mmap randomization william.c.roberts
2016-07-26 18:22 ` william.c.roberts
2016-07-26 20:03 ` Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 20:11 ` Roberts, William C
2016-07-26 20:13 ` Roberts, William C
2016-07-26 20:59 ` Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 21:06 ` Roberts, William C
2016-07-26 21:44 ` Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 23:51 ` Dave Hansen
2016-08-02 17:17 ` Roberts, William C [this message]
2016-08-03 18:19 ` Roberts, William C
2016-08-02 17:15 ` Roberts, William C
2016-07-27 16:59 ` Nick Kralevich
2016-07-28 21:07 ` Jason Cooper
2016-07-29 10:10 ` [kernel-hardening] " Daniel Micay
2016-07-31 22:24 ` Jason Cooper
2016-08-01 0:24 ` Daniel Micay
2016-08-02 16:57 ` Roberts, William C
2016-08-02 17:02 ` Nick Kralevich
2016-08-14 16:31 ` Pavel Machek 1
2016-07-26 20:12 ` [kernel-hardening] " Rik van Riel
2016-07-26 20:17 ` Roberts, William C
2016-07-26 20:41 ` Nick Kralevich
2016-07-26 21:02 ` Roberts, William C
2016-07-26 21:11 ` Nick Kralevich
2016-08-14 16:22 ` Pavel Machek
2016-08-04 16:53 ` [kernel-hardening] " Daniel Micay
2016-08-04 16:55 ` Roberts, William C
2016-08-04 17:10 ` Daniel Micay
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=476DC76E7D1DF2438D32BFADF679FC560127815C@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com \
--to=william.c.roberts@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dcashman@android.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=jeffv@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nnk@google.com \
--cc=salyzyn@android.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).