linux_dsm_epyc7002/arch/x86/mm/pkeys.c

213 lines
5.8 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
/*
* Intel Memory Protection Keys management
* Copyright (c) 2015, Intel Corporation.
*/
#include <linux/debugfs.h> /* debugfs_create_u32() */
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
#include <linux/mm_types.h> /* mm_struct, vma, etc... */
#include <linux/pkeys.h> /* PKEY_* */
#include <uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h>
#include <asm/cpufeature.h> /* boot_cpu_has, ... */
#include <asm/mmu_context.h> /* vma_pkey() */
2019-04-03 23:41:56 +07:00
#include <asm/fpu/internal.h> /* init_fpstate */
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
int __execute_only_pkey(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
x86/pkeys: Allocation/free syscalls This patch adds two new system calls: int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights) int pkey_free(int pkey); These implement an "allocator" for the protection keys themselves, which can be thought of as analogous to the allocator that the kernel has for file descriptors. The kernel tracks which numbers are in use, and only allows operations on keys that are valid. A key which was not obtained by pkey_alloc() may not, for instance, be passed to pkey_mprotect(). These system calls are also very important given the kernel's use of pkeys to implement execute-only support. These help ensure that userspace can never assume that it has control of a key unless it first asks the kernel. The kernel does not promise to preserve PKRU (right register) contents except for allocated pkeys. The 'init_access_rights' argument to pkey_alloc() specifies the rights that will be established for the returned pkey. For instance: pkey = pkey_alloc(flags, PKEY_DENY_WRITE); will allocate 'pkey', but also sets the bits in PKRU[1] such that writing to 'pkey' is already denied. The kernel does not prevent pkey_free() from successfully freeing in-use pkeys (those still assigned to a memory range by pkey_mprotect()). It would be expensive to implement the checks for this, so we instead say, "Just don't do it" since sane software will never do it anyway. Any piece of userspace calling pkey_alloc() needs to be prepared for it to fail. Why? pkey_alloc() returns the same error code (ENOSPC) when there are no pkeys and when pkeys are unsupported. They can be unsupported for a whole host of reasons, so apps must be prepared for this. Also, libraries or LD_PRELOADs might steal keys before an application gets access to them. This allocation mechanism could be implemented in userspace. Even if we did it in userspace, we would still need additional user/kernel interfaces to tell userspace which keys are being used by the kernel internally (such as for execute-only mappings). Having the kernel provide this facility completely removes the need for these additional interfaces, or having an implementation of this in userspace at all. Note that we have to make changes to all of the architectures that do not use mman-common.h because we use the new PKEY_DENY_ACCESS/WRITE macros in arch-independent code. 1. PKRU is the Protection Key Rights User register. It is a usermode-accessible register that controls whether writes and/or access to each individual pkey is allowed or denied. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: arnd@arndb.de Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: luto@kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163015.444FE75F@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-29 23:30:15 +07:00
bool need_to_set_mm_pkey = false;
int execute_only_pkey = mm->context.execute_only_pkey;
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
int ret;
x86/pkeys: Allocation/free syscalls This patch adds two new system calls: int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights) int pkey_free(int pkey); These implement an "allocator" for the protection keys themselves, which can be thought of as analogous to the allocator that the kernel has for file descriptors. The kernel tracks which numbers are in use, and only allows operations on keys that are valid. A key which was not obtained by pkey_alloc() may not, for instance, be passed to pkey_mprotect(). These system calls are also very important given the kernel's use of pkeys to implement execute-only support. These help ensure that userspace can never assume that it has control of a key unless it first asks the kernel. The kernel does not promise to preserve PKRU (right register) contents except for allocated pkeys. The 'init_access_rights' argument to pkey_alloc() specifies the rights that will be established for the returned pkey. For instance: pkey = pkey_alloc(flags, PKEY_DENY_WRITE); will allocate 'pkey', but also sets the bits in PKRU[1] such that writing to 'pkey' is already denied. The kernel does not prevent pkey_free() from successfully freeing in-use pkeys (those still assigned to a memory range by pkey_mprotect()). It would be expensive to implement the checks for this, so we instead say, "Just don't do it" since sane software will never do it anyway. Any piece of userspace calling pkey_alloc() needs to be prepared for it to fail. Why? pkey_alloc() returns the same error code (ENOSPC) when there are no pkeys and when pkeys are unsupported. They can be unsupported for a whole host of reasons, so apps must be prepared for this. Also, libraries or LD_PRELOADs might steal keys before an application gets access to them. This allocation mechanism could be implemented in userspace. Even if we did it in userspace, we would still need additional user/kernel interfaces to tell userspace which keys are being used by the kernel internally (such as for execute-only mappings). Having the kernel provide this facility completely removes the need for these additional interfaces, or having an implementation of this in userspace at all. Note that we have to make changes to all of the architectures that do not use mman-common.h because we use the new PKEY_DENY_ACCESS/WRITE macros in arch-independent code. 1. PKRU is the Protection Key Rights User register. It is a usermode-accessible register that controls whether writes and/or access to each individual pkey is allowed or denied. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: arnd@arndb.de Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: luto@kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163015.444FE75F@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-29 23:30:15 +07:00
/* Do we need to assign a pkey for mm's execute-only maps? */
if (execute_only_pkey == -1) {
/* Go allocate one to use, which might fail */
execute_only_pkey = mm_pkey_alloc(mm);
if (execute_only_pkey < 0)
return -1;
need_to_set_mm_pkey = true;
}
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
/*
* We do not want to go through the relatively costly
* dance to set PKRU if we do not need to. Check it
* first and assume that if the execute-only pkey is
* write-disabled that we do not have to set it
x86/fpu: Remove fpu->initialized The struct fpu.initialized member is always set to one for user tasks and zero for kernel tasks. This avoids saving/restoring the FPU registers for kernel threads. The ->initialized = 0 case for user tasks has been removed in previous changes, for instance, by doing an explicit unconditional init at fork() time for FPU-less systems which was otherwise delayed until the emulated opcode. The context switch code (switch_fpu_prepare() + switch_fpu_finish()) can't unconditionally save/restore registers for kernel threads. Not only would it slow down the switch but also load a zeroed xcomp_bv for XSAVES. For kernel_fpu_begin() (+end) the situation is similar: EFI with runtime services uses this before alternatives_patched is true. Which means that this function is used too early and it wasn't the case before. For those two cases, use current->mm to distinguish between user and kernel thread. For kernel_fpu_begin() skip save/restore of the FPU registers. During the context switch into a kernel thread don't do anything. There is no reason to save the FPU state of a kernel thread. The reordering in __switch_to() is important because the current() pointer needs to be valid before switch_fpu_finish() is invoked so ->mm is seen of the new task instead the old one. N.B.: fpu__save() doesn't need to check ->mm because it is called by user tasks only. [ bp: Massage. ] Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com> Cc: Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@amd.com> Cc: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com> Cc: Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de> Cc: kvm ML <kvm@vger.kernel.org> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: x86-ml <x86@kernel.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190403164156.19645-8-bigeasy@linutronix.de
2019-04-03 23:41:36 +07:00
* ourselves.
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
*/
x86/pkeys: Allocation/free syscalls This patch adds two new system calls: int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights) int pkey_free(int pkey); These implement an "allocator" for the protection keys themselves, which can be thought of as analogous to the allocator that the kernel has for file descriptors. The kernel tracks which numbers are in use, and only allows operations on keys that are valid. A key which was not obtained by pkey_alloc() may not, for instance, be passed to pkey_mprotect(). These system calls are also very important given the kernel's use of pkeys to implement execute-only support. These help ensure that userspace can never assume that it has control of a key unless it first asks the kernel. The kernel does not promise to preserve PKRU (right register) contents except for allocated pkeys. The 'init_access_rights' argument to pkey_alloc() specifies the rights that will be established for the returned pkey. For instance: pkey = pkey_alloc(flags, PKEY_DENY_WRITE); will allocate 'pkey', but also sets the bits in PKRU[1] such that writing to 'pkey' is already denied. The kernel does not prevent pkey_free() from successfully freeing in-use pkeys (those still assigned to a memory range by pkey_mprotect()). It would be expensive to implement the checks for this, so we instead say, "Just don't do it" since sane software will never do it anyway. Any piece of userspace calling pkey_alloc() needs to be prepared for it to fail. Why? pkey_alloc() returns the same error code (ENOSPC) when there are no pkeys and when pkeys are unsupported. They can be unsupported for a whole host of reasons, so apps must be prepared for this. Also, libraries or LD_PRELOADs might steal keys before an application gets access to them. This allocation mechanism could be implemented in userspace. Even if we did it in userspace, we would still need additional user/kernel interfaces to tell userspace which keys are being used by the kernel internally (such as for execute-only mappings). Having the kernel provide this facility completely removes the need for these additional interfaces, or having an implementation of this in userspace at all. Note that we have to make changes to all of the architectures that do not use mman-common.h because we use the new PKEY_DENY_ACCESS/WRITE macros in arch-independent code. 1. PKRU is the Protection Key Rights User register. It is a usermode-accessible register that controls whether writes and/or access to each individual pkey is allowed or denied. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: arnd@arndb.de Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: luto@kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163015.444FE75F@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-29 23:30:15 +07:00
if (!need_to_set_mm_pkey &&
!__pkru_allows_read(read_pkru(), execute_only_pkey)) {
return execute_only_pkey;
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
}
x86/pkeys: Allocation/free syscalls This patch adds two new system calls: int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights) int pkey_free(int pkey); These implement an "allocator" for the protection keys themselves, which can be thought of as analogous to the allocator that the kernel has for file descriptors. The kernel tracks which numbers are in use, and only allows operations on keys that are valid. A key which was not obtained by pkey_alloc() may not, for instance, be passed to pkey_mprotect(). These system calls are also very important given the kernel's use of pkeys to implement execute-only support. These help ensure that userspace can never assume that it has control of a key unless it first asks the kernel. The kernel does not promise to preserve PKRU (right register) contents except for allocated pkeys. The 'init_access_rights' argument to pkey_alloc() specifies the rights that will be established for the returned pkey. For instance: pkey = pkey_alloc(flags, PKEY_DENY_WRITE); will allocate 'pkey', but also sets the bits in PKRU[1] such that writing to 'pkey' is already denied. The kernel does not prevent pkey_free() from successfully freeing in-use pkeys (those still assigned to a memory range by pkey_mprotect()). It would be expensive to implement the checks for this, so we instead say, "Just don't do it" since sane software will never do it anyway. Any piece of userspace calling pkey_alloc() needs to be prepared for it to fail. Why? pkey_alloc() returns the same error code (ENOSPC) when there are no pkeys and when pkeys are unsupported. They can be unsupported for a whole host of reasons, so apps must be prepared for this. Also, libraries or LD_PRELOADs might steal keys before an application gets access to them. This allocation mechanism could be implemented in userspace. Even if we did it in userspace, we would still need additional user/kernel interfaces to tell userspace which keys are being used by the kernel internally (such as for execute-only mappings). Having the kernel provide this facility completely removes the need for these additional interfaces, or having an implementation of this in userspace at all. Note that we have to make changes to all of the architectures that do not use mman-common.h because we use the new PKEY_DENY_ACCESS/WRITE macros in arch-independent code. 1. PKRU is the Protection Key Rights User register. It is a usermode-accessible register that controls whether writes and/or access to each individual pkey is allowed or denied. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: arnd@arndb.de Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: luto@kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163015.444FE75F@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-29 23:30:15 +07:00
/*
* Set up PKRU so that it denies access for everything
* other than execution.
*/
ret = arch_set_user_pkey_access(current, execute_only_pkey,
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS);
/*
* If the PKRU-set operation failed somehow, just return
* 0 and effectively disable execute-only support.
*/
x86/pkeys: Allocation/free syscalls This patch adds two new system calls: int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights) int pkey_free(int pkey); These implement an "allocator" for the protection keys themselves, which can be thought of as analogous to the allocator that the kernel has for file descriptors. The kernel tracks which numbers are in use, and only allows operations on keys that are valid. A key which was not obtained by pkey_alloc() may not, for instance, be passed to pkey_mprotect(). These system calls are also very important given the kernel's use of pkeys to implement execute-only support. These help ensure that userspace can never assume that it has control of a key unless it first asks the kernel. The kernel does not promise to preserve PKRU (right register) contents except for allocated pkeys. The 'init_access_rights' argument to pkey_alloc() specifies the rights that will be established for the returned pkey. For instance: pkey = pkey_alloc(flags, PKEY_DENY_WRITE); will allocate 'pkey', but also sets the bits in PKRU[1] such that writing to 'pkey' is already denied. The kernel does not prevent pkey_free() from successfully freeing in-use pkeys (those still assigned to a memory range by pkey_mprotect()). It would be expensive to implement the checks for this, so we instead say, "Just don't do it" since sane software will never do it anyway. Any piece of userspace calling pkey_alloc() needs to be prepared for it to fail. Why? pkey_alloc() returns the same error code (ENOSPC) when there are no pkeys and when pkeys are unsupported. They can be unsupported for a whole host of reasons, so apps must be prepared for this. Also, libraries or LD_PRELOADs might steal keys before an application gets access to them. This allocation mechanism could be implemented in userspace. Even if we did it in userspace, we would still need additional user/kernel interfaces to tell userspace which keys are being used by the kernel internally (such as for execute-only mappings). Having the kernel provide this facility completely removes the need for these additional interfaces, or having an implementation of this in userspace at all. Note that we have to make changes to all of the architectures that do not use mman-common.h because we use the new PKEY_DENY_ACCESS/WRITE macros in arch-independent code. 1. PKRU is the Protection Key Rights User register. It is a usermode-accessible register that controls whether writes and/or access to each individual pkey is allowed or denied. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: arnd@arndb.de Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: luto@kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163015.444FE75F@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-29 23:30:15 +07:00
if (ret) {
mm_set_pkey_free(mm, execute_only_pkey);
return -1;
}
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
x86/pkeys: Allocation/free syscalls This patch adds two new system calls: int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights) int pkey_free(int pkey); These implement an "allocator" for the protection keys themselves, which can be thought of as analogous to the allocator that the kernel has for file descriptors. The kernel tracks which numbers are in use, and only allows operations on keys that are valid. A key which was not obtained by pkey_alloc() may not, for instance, be passed to pkey_mprotect(). These system calls are also very important given the kernel's use of pkeys to implement execute-only support. These help ensure that userspace can never assume that it has control of a key unless it first asks the kernel. The kernel does not promise to preserve PKRU (right register) contents except for allocated pkeys. The 'init_access_rights' argument to pkey_alloc() specifies the rights that will be established for the returned pkey. For instance: pkey = pkey_alloc(flags, PKEY_DENY_WRITE); will allocate 'pkey', but also sets the bits in PKRU[1] such that writing to 'pkey' is already denied. The kernel does not prevent pkey_free() from successfully freeing in-use pkeys (those still assigned to a memory range by pkey_mprotect()). It would be expensive to implement the checks for this, so we instead say, "Just don't do it" since sane software will never do it anyway. Any piece of userspace calling pkey_alloc() needs to be prepared for it to fail. Why? pkey_alloc() returns the same error code (ENOSPC) when there are no pkeys and when pkeys are unsupported. They can be unsupported for a whole host of reasons, so apps must be prepared for this. Also, libraries or LD_PRELOADs might steal keys before an application gets access to them. This allocation mechanism could be implemented in userspace. Even if we did it in userspace, we would still need additional user/kernel interfaces to tell userspace which keys are being used by the kernel internally (such as for execute-only mappings). Having the kernel provide this facility completely removes the need for these additional interfaces, or having an implementation of this in userspace at all. Note that we have to make changes to all of the architectures that do not use mman-common.h because we use the new PKEY_DENY_ACCESS/WRITE macros in arch-independent code. 1. PKRU is the Protection Key Rights User register. It is a usermode-accessible register that controls whether writes and/or access to each individual pkey is allowed or denied. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: arnd@arndb.de Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: luto@kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163015.444FE75F@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-29 23:30:15 +07:00
/* We got one, store it and use it from here on out */
if (need_to_set_mm_pkey)
mm->context.execute_only_pkey = execute_only_pkey;
return execute_only_pkey;
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
}
static inline bool vma_is_pkey_exec_only(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
/* Do this check first since the vm_flags should be hot */
if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_ACCESS_FLAGS) != VM_EXEC)
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
return false;
x86/pkeys: Allocation/free syscalls This patch adds two new system calls: int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights) int pkey_free(int pkey); These implement an "allocator" for the protection keys themselves, which can be thought of as analogous to the allocator that the kernel has for file descriptors. The kernel tracks which numbers are in use, and only allows operations on keys that are valid. A key which was not obtained by pkey_alloc() may not, for instance, be passed to pkey_mprotect(). These system calls are also very important given the kernel's use of pkeys to implement execute-only support. These help ensure that userspace can never assume that it has control of a key unless it first asks the kernel. The kernel does not promise to preserve PKRU (right register) contents except for allocated pkeys. The 'init_access_rights' argument to pkey_alloc() specifies the rights that will be established for the returned pkey. For instance: pkey = pkey_alloc(flags, PKEY_DENY_WRITE); will allocate 'pkey', but also sets the bits in PKRU[1] such that writing to 'pkey' is already denied. The kernel does not prevent pkey_free() from successfully freeing in-use pkeys (those still assigned to a memory range by pkey_mprotect()). It would be expensive to implement the checks for this, so we instead say, "Just don't do it" since sane software will never do it anyway. Any piece of userspace calling pkey_alloc() needs to be prepared for it to fail. Why? pkey_alloc() returns the same error code (ENOSPC) when there are no pkeys and when pkeys are unsupported. They can be unsupported for a whole host of reasons, so apps must be prepared for this. Also, libraries or LD_PRELOADs might steal keys before an application gets access to them. This allocation mechanism could be implemented in userspace. Even if we did it in userspace, we would still need additional user/kernel interfaces to tell userspace which keys are being used by the kernel internally (such as for execute-only mappings). Having the kernel provide this facility completely removes the need for these additional interfaces, or having an implementation of this in userspace at all. Note that we have to make changes to all of the architectures that do not use mman-common.h because we use the new PKEY_DENY_ACCESS/WRITE macros in arch-independent code. 1. PKRU is the Protection Key Rights User register. It is a usermode-accessible register that controls whether writes and/or access to each individual pkey is allowed or denied. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: arnd@arndb.de Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: luto@kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163015.444FE75F@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-29 23:30:15 +07:00
if (vma_pkey(vma) != vma->vm_mm->context.execute_only_pkey)
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
return false;
return true;
}
/*
* This is only called for *plain* mprotect calls.
*/
int __arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int prot, int pkey)
{
/*
* Is this an mprotect_pkey() call? If so, never
* override the value that came from the user.
*/
if (pkey != -1)
return pkey;
x86/pkeys: Override pkey when moving away from PROT_EXEC I got a bug report that the following code (roughly) was causing a SIGSEGV: mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_EXEC); mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_NONE); mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_READ); *ptr = 100; The problem is hit when the mprotect(PROT_EXEC) is implicitly assigned a protection key to the VMA, and made that key ACCESS_DENY|WRITE_DENY. The PROT_NONE mprotect() failed to remove the protection key, and the PROT_NONE-> PROT_READ left the PTE usable, but the pkey still in place and left the memory inaccessible. To fix this, we ensure that we always "override" the pkee at mprotect() if the VMA does not have execute-only permissions, but the VMA has the execute-only pkey. We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks, which ensures that PROT_NONE now works. Reported-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michael Ellermen <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 62b5f7d013f ("mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support") Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180509171351.084C5A71@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-05-10 00:13:51 +07:00
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
/*
* The mapping is execute-only. Go try to get the
* execute-only protection key. If we fail to do that,
* fall through as if we do not have execute-only
x86/pkeys: Override pkey when moving away from PROT_EXEC I got a bug report that the following code (roughly) was causing a SIGSEGV: mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_EXEC); mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_NONE); mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_READ); *ptr = 100; The problem is hit when the mprotect(PROT_EXEC) is implicitly assigned a protection key to the VMA, and made that key ACCESS_DENY|WRITE_DENY. The PROT_NONE mprotect() failed to remove the protection key, and the PROT_NONE-> PROT_READ left the PTE usable, but the pkey still in place and left the memory inaccessible. To fix this, we ensure that we always "override" the pkee at mprotect() if the VMA does not have execute-only permissions, but the VMA has the execute-only pkey. We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks, which ensures that PROT_NONE now works. Reported-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michael Ellermen <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 62b5f7d013f ("mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support") Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180509171351.084C5A71@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-05-10 00:13:51 +07:00
* support in this mm.
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
*/
if (prot == PROT_EXEC) {
pkey = execute_only_pkey(vma->vm_mm);
if (pkey > 0)
return pkey;
x86/pkeys: Override pkey when moving away from PROT_EXEC I got a bug report that the following code (roughly) was causing a SIGSEGV: mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_EXEC); mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_NONE); mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_READ); *ptr = 100; The problem is hit when the mprotect(PROT_EXEC) is implicitly assigned a protection key to the VMA, and made that key ACCESS_DENY|WRITE_DENY. The PROT_NONE mprotect() failed to remove the protection key, and the PROT_NONE-> PROT_READ left the PTE usable, but the pkey still in place and left the memory inaccessible. To fix this, we ensure that we always "override" the pkee at mprotect() if the VMA does not have execute-only permissions, but the VMA has the execute-only pkey. We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks, which ensures that PROT_NONE now works. Reported-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michael Ellermen <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 62b5f7d013f ("mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support") Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180509171351.084C5A71@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-05-10 00:13:51 +07:00
} else if (vma_is_pkey_exec_only(vma)) {
/*
* Protections are *not* PROT_EXEC, but the mapping
* is using the exec-only pkey. This mapping was
* PROT_EXEC and will no longer be. Move back to
* the default pkey.
*/
return ARCH_DEFAULT_PKEY;
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
}
x86/pkeys: Override pkey when moving away from PROT_EXEC I got a bug report that the following code (roughly) was causing a SIGSEGV: mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_EXEC); mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_NONE); mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_READ); *ptr = 100; The problem is hit when the mprotect(PROT_EXEC) is implicitly assigned a protection key to the VMA, and made that key ACCESS_DENY|WRITE_DENY. The PROT_NONE mprotect() failed to remove the protection key, and the PROT_NONE-> PROT_READ left the PTE usable, but the pkey still in place and left the memory inaccessible. To fix this, we ensure that we always "override" the pkee at mprotect() if the VMA does not have execute-only permissions, but the VMA has the execute-only pkey. We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks, which ensures that PROT_NONE now works. Reported-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michael Ellermen <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 62b5f7d013f ("mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support") Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180509171351.084C5A71@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-05-10 00:13:51 +07:00
mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support Protection keys provide new page-based protection in hardware. But, they have an interesting attribute: they only affect data accesses and never affect instruction fetches. That means that if we set up some memory which is set as "access-disabled" via protection keys, we can still execute from it. This patch uses protection keys to set up mappings to do just that. If a user calls: mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); or mprotect(ptr, sz, PROT_EXEC); (note PROT_EXEC-only without PROT_READ/WRITE), the kernel will notice this, and set a special protection key on the memory. It also sets the appropriate bits in the Protection Keys User Rights (PKRU) register so that the memory becomes unreadable and unwritable. I haven't found any userspace that does this today. With this facility in place, we expect userspace to move to use it eventually. Userspace _could_ start doing this today. Any PROT_EXEC calls get converted to PROT_READ inside the kernel, and would transparently be upgraded to "true" PROT_EXEC with this code. IOW, userspace never has to do any PROT_EXEC runtime detection. This feature provides enhanced protection against leaking executable memory contents. This helps thwart attacks which are attempting to find ROP gadgets on the fly. But, the security provided by this approach is not comprehensive. The PKRU register which controls access permissions is a normal user register writable from unprivileged userspace. An attacker who can execute the 'wrpkru' instruction can easily disable the protection provided by this feature. The protection key that is used for execute-only support is permanently dedicated at compile time. This is fine for now because there is currently no API to set a protection key other than this one. Despite there being a constant PKRU value across the entire system, we do not set it unless this feature is in use in a process. That is to preserve the PKRU XSAVE 'init state', which can lead to faster context switches. PKRU *is* a user register and the kernel is modifying it. That means that code doing: pkru = rdpkru() pkru |= 0x100; mmap(..., PROT_EXEC); wrpkru(pkru); could lose the bits in PKRU that enforce execute-only permissions. To avoid this, we suggest avoiding ever calling mmap() or mprotect() when the PKRU value is expected to be unstable. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> Cc: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: keescook@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210240.CB4BB5CA@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-02-13 04:02:40 +07:00
/*
* This is a vanilla, non-pkey mprotect (or we failed to
* setup execute-only), inherit the pkey from the VMA we
* are working on.
*/
return vma_pkey(vma);
}
x86/pkeys: Default to a restrictive init PKRU PKRU is the register that lets you disallow writes or all access to a given protection key. The XSAVE hardware defines an "init state" of 0 for PKRU: its most permissive state, allowing access/writes to everything. Since we start off all new processes with the init state, we start all processes off with the most permissive possible PKRU. This is unfortunate. If a thread is clone()'d [1] before a program has time to set PKRU to a restrictive value, that thread will be able to write to all data, no matter what pkey is set on it. This weakens any integrity guarantees that we want pkeys to provide. To fix this, we define a very restrictive PKRU to override the XSAVE-provided value when we create a new FPU context. We choose a value that only allows access to pkey 0, which is as restrictive as we can practically make it. This does not cause any practical problems with applications using protection keys because we require them to specify initial permissions for each key when it is allocated, which override the restrictive default. In the end, this ensures that threads which do not know how to manage their own pkey rights can not do damage to data which is pkey-protected. I would have thought this was a pretty contrived scenario, except that I heard a bug report from an MPX user who was creating threads in some very early code before main(). It may be crazy, but folks evidently _do_ it. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: mgorman@techsingularity.net Cc: arnd@arndb.de Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: luto@kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163021.F3C25D4A@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-29 23:30:21 +07:00
#define PKRU_AD_KEY(pkey) (PKRU_AD_BIT << ((pkey) * PKRU_BITS_PER_PKEY))
/*
* Make the default PKRU value (at execve() time) as restrictive
* as possible. This ensures that any threads clone()'d early
* in the process's lifetime will not accidentally get access
* to data which is pkey-protected later on.
*/
u32 init_pkru_value = PKRU_AD_KEY( 1) | PKRU_AD_KEY( 2) | PKRU_AD_KEY( 3) |
PKRU_AD_KEY( 4) | PKRU_AD_KEY( 5) | PKRU_AD_KEY( 6) |
PKRU_AD_KEY( 7) | PKRU_AD_KEY( 8) | PKRU_AD_KEY( 9) |
PKRU_AD_KEY(10) | PKRU_AD_KEY(11) | PKRU_AD_KEY(12) |
PKRU_AD_KEY(13) | PKRU_AD_KEY(14) | PKRU_AD_KEY(15);
/*
* Called from the FPU code when creating a fresh set of FPU
* registers. This is called from a very specific context where
* we know the FPU regstiers are safe for use and we can use PKRU
* directly.
x86/pkeys: Default to a restrictive init PKRU PKRU is the register that lets you disallow writes or all access to a given protection key. The XSAVE hardware defines an "init state" of 0 for PKRU: its most permissive state, allowing access/writes to everything. Since we start off all new processes with the init state, we start all processes off with the most permissive possible PKRU. This is unfortunate. If a thread is clone()'d [1] before a program has time to set PKRU to a restrictive value, that thread will be able to write to all data, no matter what pkey is set on it. This weakens any integrity guarantees that we want pkeys to provide. To fix this, we define a very restrictive PKRU to override the XSAVE-provided value when we create a new FPU context. We choose a value that only allows access to pkey 0, which is as restrictive as we can practically make it. This does not cause any practical problems with applications using protection keys because we require them to specify initial permissions for each key when it is allocated, which override the restrictive default. In the end, this ensures that threads which do not know how to manage their own pkey rights can not do damage to data which is pkey-protected. I would have thought this was a pretty contrived scenario, except that I heard a bug report from an MPX user who was creating threads in some very early code before main(). It may be crazy, but folks evidently _do_ it. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> Cc: mgorman@techsingularity.net Cc: arnd@arndb.de Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: luto@kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160729163021.F3C25D4A@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-29 23:30:21 +07:00
*/
void copy_init_pkru_to_fpregs(void)
{
u32 init_pkru_value_snapshot = READ_ONCE(init_pkru_value);
/*
* Override the PKRU state that came from 'init_fpstate'
* with the baseline from the process.
*/
write_pkru(init_pkru_value_snapshot);
}
static ssize_t init_pkru_read_file(struct file *file, char __user *user_buf,
size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
{
char buf[32];
unsigned int len;
len = sprintf(buf, "0x%x\n", init_pkru_value);
return simple_read_from_buffer(user_buf, count, ppos, buf, len);
}
static ssize_t init_pkru_write_file(struct file *file,
const char __user *user_buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
{
2019-04-03 23:41:56 +07:00
struct pkru_state *pk;
char buf[32];
ssize_t len;
u32 new_init_pkru;
len = min(count, sizeof(buf) - 1);
if (copy_from_user(buf, user_buf, len))
return -EFAULT;
/* Make the buffer a valid string that we can not overrun */
buf[len] = '\0';
if (kstrtouint(buf, 0, &new_init_pkru))
return -EINVAL;
/*
* Don't allow insane settings that will blow the system
* up immediately if someone attempts to disable access
* or writes to pkey 0.
*/
if (new_init_pkru & (PKRU_AD_BIT|PKRU_WD_BIT))
return -EINVAL;
WRITE_ONCE(init_pkru_value, new_init_pkru);
2019-04-03 23:41:56 +07:00
pk = get_xsave_addr(&init_fpstate.xsave, XFEATURE_PKRU);
if (!pk)
return -EINVAL;
pk->pkru = new_init_pkru;
return count;
}
static const struct file_operations fops_init_pkru = {
.read = init_pkru_read_file,
.write = init_pkru_write_file,
.llseek = default_llseek,
};
static int __init create_init_pkru_value(void)
{
debugfs_create_file("init_pkru", S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR,
arch_debugfs_dir, NULL, &fops_init_pkru);
return 0;
}
late_initcall(create_init_pkru_value);
static __init int setup_init_pkru(char *opt)
{
u32 new_init_pkru;
if (kstrtouint(opt, 0, &new_init_pkru))
return 1;
WRITE_ONCE(init_pkru_value, new_init_pkru);
return 1;
}
__setup("init_pkru=", setup_init_pkru);