Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1676249

Re: [RFC v2 5/9] S.A.R.A. WX Protection

From Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [RFC v2 5/9] S.A.R.A. WX Protection
Date 2017-06-28 01:10 +0200
Message-ID <tX7Ml-7kb-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <tSG81-4QO-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tSG82-4QO-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Salvatore Mesoraca
<s.mesoraca16@gmail.com> wrote:
> +static int sara_check_vmflags(vm_flags_t vm_flags)
> +{
> +       u16 sara_wxp_flags = get_current_sara_wxp_flags();
> +
> +       if (sara_enabled && wxprot_enabled) {
> +               if (sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_WXORX &&
> +                   vm_flags & VM_WRITE &&
> +                   vm_flags & VM_EXEC) {
> +                       if ((sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_VERBOSE))
> +                               pr_wxp("W^X");
> +                       if (!(sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_COMPLAIN))
> +                               return -EPERM;
> +               }
> +               if (sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_MMAP &&
> +                   (vm_flags & VM_EXEC ||
> +                    (!(vm_flags & VM_MAYWRITE) && (vm_flags & VM_MAYEXEC))) &&
> +                   get_current_sara_mmap_blocked()) {
> +                       if ((sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_VERBOSE))
> +                               pr_wxp("executable mmap");
> +                       if (!(sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_COMPLAIN))
> +                               return -EPERM;
> +               }
> +       }

Given the subtle differences between these various if blocks (here and
in the other hook), I think it would be nice to have some beefy
comments here to describe specifically what's being checked (and why).
It'll help others review this code, and help validate code against
intent.

I would also try to minimize the written code by creating a macro for
a repeated pattern here:

> +                               if ((sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_VERBOSE))
> +                                       pr_wxp("mprotect on file mmap");
> +                               if (!(sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_COMPLAIN))
> +                                       return -EACCES;

These four lines are repeated several times with only the const char *
and return value changing. Perhaps something like:

#define sara_return(err, msg) do { \
                               if ((sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_VERBOSE)) \
                                       pr_wxp(err); \
                               if (!(sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_COMPLAIN)) \
                                       return -err; \
} while (0)

Then each if block turns into something quite easier to parse:

               if (sara_wxp_flags & SARA_WXP_WXORX &&
                   vm_flags & VM_WRITE &&
                   vm_flags & VM_EXEC)
                       sara_return(EPERM, "W^X");


-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextNext in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [RFC v2 5/9] S.A.R.A. WX Protection Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-06-28 01:10 +0200
  Re: [RFC v2 5/9] S.A.R.A. WX Protection Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 21:40 +0200

csiph-web