Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1413422
| From | "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls |
| Date | 2016-06-03 21:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rG3gt-7rr-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <rFk9I-4bk-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <rFowH-7d9-43@gated-at.bofh.it> <rFowH-7d9-47@gated-at.bofh.it> <rFL9U-4xF-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <rG14Z-6b0-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 06/03/2016 12:28 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 06/02/2016 05:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> On 06/01/2016 07:17 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: >>> On 06/01/2016 05:11 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I read this right, it doesn't actually remove any pkey restrictions >>>>>>>> that may have been applied while the key was allocated. So there could be >>>>>>>> pages with that key assigned that might do surprising things if the key is >>>>>>>> reallocated for another use later, right? Is that how the API is intended >>>>>>>> to work? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, that's how it works. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not ideal. It would be _best_ if we during mm_pkey_free(), we >>>>>> ensured that no VMAs under that mm have that vma_pkey() set. But, that >>>>>> search would be potentially expensive (a walk over all VMAs), or would >>>>>> force us to keep a data structure with a count of all the VMAs with a >>>>>> given key. >>>>>> >>>>>> I should probably discuss this behavior in the manpages and address it >>>> s/probably// >>>> >>>> And, did I miss it. Was there an updated man-pages patch in the latest >>>> series? I did not notice it. >>> >>> There have been to changes to the patches that warranted updating the >>> manpages until now. I'll send the update immediately. >> >> Do those updated pages include discussion of the point noted above? >> I could not see it mentioned there. > > I added the following text to pkey_alloc.2. I somehow neglected to send > it out in the v3 update of the manpages RFC: > > An application should not call > .BR pkey_free () > on any protection key which has been assigned to an address > range by > .BR pkey_mprotect () > and which is still in use. The behavior in this case is > undefined and may result in an error. > > I'll add that in the version (v4) I send out shortly. > >> Just by the way, the above behavior seems to offer possibilities >> for users to shoot themselves in the foot, in a way that has security >> implications. (Or do I misunderstand?) > > Protection keys has the potential to add a layer of security and > reliability to applications. But, it has not been primarily designed as > a security feature. For instance, WRPKRU is a completely unprivileged > instruction, so pkeys are useless in any case that an attacker controls > the PKRU register or can execute arbitrary instructions. > > That said, this mechanism does, indeed, allow a user to shoot themselves > in the foot and in a way that could have security implications. > > For instance, say the following happened: > 1. A sensitive bit of data in memory was marked with a pkey > 2. That pkey was set as PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS > 3. The application called pkey_free() on the pkey, without freeing > the sensitive data > 4. Application calls pkey_alloc() and then clears PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS > 5. Applocation can now read the sensitive data > > The application has to have basically "leaked" a reference to the pkey. > It forgot that it had sensitive data marked with that key. > > The kernel _could_ enforce that no in-use pkey may have pkey_free() > called on it. But, doing that has tradeoffs which could make > pkey_free() extremely slow: > >> It's not ideal. It would be _best_ if we during mm_pkey_free(), we >> ensured that no VMAs under that mm have that vma_pkey() set. But, that >> search would be potentially expensive (a walk over all VMAs), or would >> force us to keep a data structure with a count of all the VMAs with a >> given key. > > In addition, that checking _could_ be implemented in an application by > inspecting /proc/$pid/smaps for "ProtectionKey: $foo" before calling > pkey_free($foo). So, I think all of the above needs to be made abundantly clear in pkeys(7). Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 0/8] System Calls for Memory Protection Keys Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-05-31 17:30 +0200
[PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-05-31 17:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> - 2016-06-01 20:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-06-01 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 02:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-06-02 02:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 02:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-06-03 19:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 21:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-06-02 13:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86, pkeys: allocation/free syscalls Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-06-02 23:20 +0200
[PATCH 4/8] x86: wire up mprotect_key() system call Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-05-31 17:30 +0200
[PATCH 3/8] x86, pkeys: make mprotect_key() mask off additional vm_flags Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-05-31 17:30 +0200
[PATCH 7/8] pkeys: add details of system call use to Documentation/ Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-05-31 17:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 7/8] pkeys: add details of system call use to Documentation/ Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> - 2016-06-01 18:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 7/8] pkeys: add details of system call use to Documentation/ Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-06-01 18:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 7/8] pkeys: add details of system call use to Documentation/ Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> - 2016-06-01 19:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 7/8] pkeys: add details of system call use to Documentation/ Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-06-01 19:20 +0200
[PATCH 6/8] x86, pkeys: add pkey set/get syscalls Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-05-31 17:30 +0200
[PATCH 2/8] mm: implement new pkey_mprotect() system call Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-05-31 17:40 +0200
[PATCH 1/8] x86, pkeys: add fault handling for PF_PK page fault bit Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2016-05-31 17:40 +0200
csiph-web