Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1262539
| From | Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. |
| Date | 2015-11-04 20:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qrc4x-4EN-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qqOlA-6kC-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <qqTOh-1pC-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qqUqZ-1DM-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qqV3I-27u-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 11/3/15 5:31 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:40:31 -0600 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > >> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes: >> >>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:10:03 -0800 Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> wrote: >>> >>>> ASLR currently only uses 8 bits to generate the random offset for the >>>> mmap base address on 32 bit architectures. This value was chosen to >>>> prevent a poorly chosen value from dividing the address space in such >>>> a way as to prevent large allocations. This may not be an issue on all >>>> platforms. Allow the specification of a minimum number of bits so that >>>> platforms desiring greater ASLR protection may determine where to place >>>> the trade-off. >>> >>> Can we please include a very good description of the motivation for this >>> change? What is inadequate about the current code, what value does the >>> enhancement have to our users, what real-world problems are being solved, >>> etc. >>> >>> Because all we have at present is "greater ASLR protection", which doesn't >>> really tell anyone anything. >> >> The description seemed clear to me. >> >> More random bits, more entropy, more work needed to brute force. >> >> 8 bits only requires 256 tries (or a 1 in 256) chance to brute force >> something. > > Of course, but that's not really very useful. > >> We have seen in the last couple of months on Android how only having 8 bits >> doesn't help much. > > Now THAT is important. What happened here and how well does the > proposed fix improve things? How much longer will a brute-force attack > take to succeed, with a particular set of kernel parameters? Is the > new duration considered to be sufficiently long and if not, are there > alternative fixes we should be looking at? > > Stuff like this. > >> Each additional bit doubles the protection (and unfortunately also >> increases fragmentation of the userspace address space). > > OK, so the benefit comes with a cost and people who are configuring > systems (and the people who are reviewing this patchset!) need to > understand the tradeoffs. Please. The direct motivation here was in response to the libstagefright vulnerabilities that affected Android, specifically to information provided by Google's project zero at: http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2015/09/stagefrightened.html The attack there specifically used the limited randomness used in generating the mmap base address as part of a brute-force-based exploit. In this particular case, the attack was against the mediaserver process on Android, which was limited to respawning every 5 seconds, giving the attacker an average expected success rate of defeating the mmap ASLR after over 10 minutes (128 tries at 5 seconds each). With change to the maximum proposed value of 16 bits, this would change to over 45 hours (32768 tries), which would make the user of such a system much more likely to notice such an attack. I understand the desire for this clarification, and will happily try to improve the explanation for this change, especially so that those considering use of this option understand the tradeoffs, but I also view this as one particular hardening change which is a component of making attacks such as these harder, rather than the only solution. As for the clarification itself, where would you like it? I could include a cover letter for this patch-set, elaborate more in the commit message itself, add more to the Kconfig help description, or some combination of the above. Thank You, Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> - 2015-11-03 19:20 +0100
[PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> - 2015-11-03 19:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-11-03 20:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> - 2015-11-03 23:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-11-04 00:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> - 2015-11-04 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> - 2015-11-04 00:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-11-04 00:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> - 2015-11-04 19:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> - 2015-11-05 19:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-11-06 22:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2015-11-09 04:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> - 2015-11-09 20:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: mm: support ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-11-09 22:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-11-03 20:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-04 01:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) - 2015-11-04 01:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-04 02:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> - 2015-11-04 20:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-04 23:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) - 2015-11-04 23:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-11-04 23:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-11-04 10:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) - 2015-11-04 20:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: mmap: Add new /proc tunable for mmap_base ASLR. Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com> - 2015-11-04 20:40 +0100
csiph-web