Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1344655 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-26 21:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-02-28 23:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v2] mm/mprotect.c: don't imply PROT_EXEC on non-exec fs Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-26 21:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2] mm/mprotect.c: don't imply PROT_EXEC on non-exec fs Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 23:00 +0100
| From | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 21:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] mm/mprotect.c: don't imply PROT_EXEC on non-exec fs |
| Message-ID | <r6xbs-aO-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:29:37 +0100 Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> wrote:
> The mprotect(PROT_READ) fails when called by the READ_IMPLIES_EXEC binary
> on a memory mapped file located on non-exec fs. The mprotect does not
> check whether fs is _executable_ or not. The PROT_EXEC flag is set
> automatically even if a memory mapped file is located on non-exec fs.
> Fix it by checking whether a memory mapped file is located on a non-exec
> fs. If so the PROT_EXEC is not implied by the PROT_READ.
> The implementation uses the VM_MAYEXEC flag set properly in mmap.
> Now it is consistent with mmap.
>
> I did the isolated tests (PT_GNU_STACK X/NX, multiple VMAs, X/NX fs).
> I also patched the official 3.19.0-47-generic Ubuntu 14.04 kernel
> and it seems to work.
sys_mprotect() just took a mangling in linux-next due to
commit 62b5f7d013fc455b8db26cf01e421f4c0d264b92
Author: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
AuthorDate: Fri Feb 12 13:02:40 2016 -0800
Commit: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitDate: Thu Feb 18 19:46:33 2016 +0100
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support
Here is my rework of your "mm/mprotect.c: don't imply PROT_EXEC on
non-exec fs" to handle this. Please check very carefully.
From: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com>
Subject: mm/mprotect.c: don't imply PROT_EXEC on non-exec fs
The mprotect(PROT_READ) fails when called by the READ_IMPLIES_EXEC binary
on a memory mapped file located on non-exec fs. The mprotect does not
check whether fs is _executable_ or not. The PROT_EXEC flag is set
automatically even if a memory mapped file is located on non-exec fs. Fix
it by checking whether a memory mapped file is located on a non-exec fs.
If so the PROT_EXEC is not implied by the PROT_READ. The implementation
uses the VM_MAYEXEC flag set properly in mmap. Now it is consistent with
mmap.
I did the isolated tests (PT_GNU_STACK X/NX, multiple VMAs, X/NX fs). I
also patched the official 3.19.0-47-generic Ubuntu 14.04 kernel and it
seems to work.
Signed-off-by: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---
mm/mprotect.c | 13 ++++++++-----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff -puN mm/mprotect.c~mm-mprotectc-dont-imply-prot_exec-on-non-exec-fs mm/mprotect.c
--- a/mm/mprotect.c~mm-mprotectc-dont-imply-prot_exec-on-non-exec-fs
+++ a/mm/mprotect.c
@@ -359,6 +359,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long,
struct vm_area_struct *vma, *prev;
int error = -EINVAL;
const int grows = prot & (PROT_GROWSDOWN|PROT_GROWSUP);
+ const bool rier = (current->personality & READ_IMPLIES_EXEC) &&
+ (prot & PROT_READ);
+
prot &= ~(PROT_GROWSDOWN|PROT_GROWSUP);
if (grows == (PROT_GROWSDOWN|PROT_GROWSUP)) /* can't be both */
return -EINVAL;
@@ -375,11 +378,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long,
return -EINVAL;
reqprot = prot;
- /*
- * Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC:
- */
- if ((prot & PROT_READ) && (current->personality & READ_IMPLIES_EXEC))
- prot |= PROT_EXEC;
down_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
@@ -414,6 +412,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long,
/* Here we know that vma->vm_start <= nstart < vma->vm_end. */
+ /* Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC */
+ if (rier && (vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYEXEC))
+ prot |= PROT_EXEC;
+
newflags = calc_vm_prot_bits(prot, pkey);
newflags |= (vma->vm_flags & ~(VM_READ | VM_WRITE | VM_EXEC));
@@ -445,6 +447,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long,
error = -ENOMEM;
goto out;
}
+ prot = reqprot;
}
out:
up_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
_
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 23:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r7hxE-o4-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1344655 |
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:20:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:29:37 +0100 Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The mprotect(PROT_READ) fails when called by the READ_IMPLIES_EXEC binary > > on a memory mapped file located on non-exec fs. The mprotect does not > > check whether fs is _executable_ or not. The PROT_EXEC flag is set > > automatically even if a memory mapped file is located on non-exec fs. > > Fix it by checking whether a memory mapped file is located on a non-exec > > fs. If so the PROT_EXEC is not implied by the PROT_READ. > > The implementation uses the VM_MAYEXEC flag set properly in mmap. > > Now it is consistent with mmap. > > > > I did the isolated tests (PT_GNU_STACK X/NX, multiple VMAs, X/NX fs). > > I also patched the official 3.19.0-47-generic Ubuntu 14.04 kernel > > and it seems to work. > > sys_mprotect() just took a mangling in linux-next due to > > commit 62b5f7d013fc455b8db26cf01e421f4c0d264b92 > Author: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > AuthorDate: Fri Feb 12 13:02:40 2016 -0800 > Commit: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > CommitDate: Thu Feb 18 19:46:33 2016 +0100 > > mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support > > > Here is my rework of your "mm/mprotect.c: don't imply PROT_EXEC on > non-exec fs" to handle this. Please check very carefully. > > > From: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> > Subject: mm/mprotect.c: don't imply PROT_EXEC on non-exec fs > > The mprotect(PROT_READ) fails when called by the READ_IMPLIES_EXEC binary > on a memory mapped file located on non-exec fs. The mprotect does not > check whether fs is _executable_ or not. The PROT_EXEC flag is set > automatically even if a memory mapped file is located on non-exec fs. Fix > it by checking whether a memory mapped file is located on a non-exec fs. > If so the PROT_EXEC is not implied by the PROT_READ. The implementation > uses the VM_MAYEXEC flag set properly in mmap. Now it is consistent with > mmap. > > I did the isolated tests (PT_GNU_STACK X/NX, multiple VMAs, X/NX fs). I > also patched the official 3.19.0-47-generic Ubuntu 14.04 kernel and it > seems to work. > > Signed-off-by: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> > Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> > Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > --- > > mm/mprotect.c | 13 ++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff -puN mm/mprotect.c~mm-mprotectc-dont-imply-prot_exec-on-non-exec-fs mm/mprotect.c > --- a/mm/mprotect.c~mm-mprotectc-dont-imply-prot_exec-on-non-exec-fs > +++ a/mm/mprotect.c > @@ -359,6 +359,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, > struct vm_area_struct *vma, *prev; > int error = -EINVAL; > const int grows = prot & (PROT_GROWSDOWN|PROT_GROWSUP); > + const bool rier = (current->personality & READ_IMPLIES_EXEC) && > + (prot & PROT_READ); > + > prot &= ~(PROT_GROWSDOWN|PROT_GROWSUP); > if (grows == (PROT_GROWSDOWN|PROT_GROWSUP)) /* can't be both */ > return -EINVAL; > @@ -375,11 +378,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, > return -EINVAL; > > reqprot = prot; > - /* > - * Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC: > - */ > - if ((prot & PROT_READ) && (current->personality & READ_IMPLIES_EXEC)) > - prot |= PROT_EXEC; > > down_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); > > @@ -414,6 +412,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, > > /* Here we know that vma->vm_start <= nstart < vma->vm_end. */ > > + /* Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC */ > + if (rier && (vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYEXEC)) > + prot |= PROT_EXEC; > + > newflags = calc_vm_prot_bits(prot, pkey); > newflags |= (vma->vm_flags & ~(VM_READ | VM_WRITE | VM_EXEC)); > > @@ -445,6 +447,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, > error = -ENOMEM; > goto out; > } > + prot = reqprot; > } > out: > up_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); > _ > It looks good. I also did some tests (non-MPK CPU) - passed. Thank you.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web