[RFC PATCH v9 03/13] mm: Add support for eXclusive Page Frame Ownership (XPFO)
khalid.aziz at oracle.com
Thu Apr 18 14:34:32 UTC 2019
On 4/17/19 11:41 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:41 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote:
>> I don't think this type of NX goof was ever the argument for XPFO.
>> The main argument I've heard is that a malicious user program writes a
>> ROP payload into user memory (regular anonymous user memory) and then
>> gets the kernel to erroneously set RSP (*not* RIP) to point there.
> Well, more than just ROP. Any of the various attack primitives. The NX
> stuff is about moving RIP: SMEP-bypassing. But there is still basic
> SMAP-bypassing for putting a malicious structure in userspace and
> having the kernel access it via the linear mapping, etc.
>> I find this argument fairly weak for a couple reasons. First, if
>> we're worried about this, let's do in-kernel CFI, not XPFO, to
> CFI is getting much closer. Getting the kernel happy under Clang, LTO,
> and CFI is under active development. (It's functional for arm64
> already, and pieces have been getting upstreamed.)
CFI theoretically offers protection with fairly low overhead. I have not
played much with CFI in clang. I agree with Linus that probability of
bugs in XPFO implementation itself is a cause of concern. If CFI in
Clang can provide us the same level of protection as XPFO does, I
wouldn't want to push for an expensive change like XPFO.
If Clang/CFI can't get us there for extended period of time, does it
make sense to continue to poke at XPFO?
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive