2016-02-13 05:02:32 +08:00
|
|
|
#ifndef _ASM_X86_PKEYS_H
|
|
|
|
|
#define _ASM_X86_PKEYS_H
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm: Implement new pkey_mprotect() system call
pkey_mprotect() is just like mprotect, except it also takes a
protection key as an argument. On systems that do not support
protection keys, it still works, but requires that key=0.
Otherwise it does exactly what mprotect does.
I expect it to get used like this, if you want to guarantee that
any mapping you create can *never* be accessed without the right
protection keys set up.
int real_prot = PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE;
pkey = pkey_alloc(0, PKEY_DENY_ACCESS);
ptr = mmap(NULL, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
ret = pkey_mprotect(ptr, PAGE_SIZE, real_prot, pkey);
This way, there is *no* window where the mapping is accessible
since it was always either PROT_NONE or had a protection key set
that denied all access.
We settled on 'unsigned long' for the type of the key here. We
only need 4 bits on x86 today, but I figured that other
architectures might need some more space.
Semantically, we have a bit of a problem if we combine this
syscall with our previously-introduced execute-only support:
What do we do when we mix execute-only pkey use with
pkey_mprotect() use? For instance:
pkey_mprotect(ptr, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_WRITE, 6); // set pkey=6
mprotect(ptr, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_EXEC); // set pkey=X_ONLY_PKEY?
mprotect(ptr, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_WRITE); // is pkey=6 again?
To solve that, we make the plain-mprotect()-initiated execute-only
support only apply to VMAs that have the default protection key (0)
set on them.
Proposed semantics:
1. protection key 0 is special and represents the default,
"unassigned" protection key. It is always allocated.
2. mprotect() never affects a mapping's pkey_mprotect()-assigned
protection key. A protection key of 0 (even if set explicitly)
represents an unassigned protection key.
2a. mprotect(PROT_EXEC) on a mapping with an assigned protection
key may or may not result in a mapping with execute-only
properties. pkey_mprotect() plus pkey_set() on all threads
should be used to _guarantee_ execute-only semantics if this
is not a strong enough semantic.
3. mprotect(PROT_EXEC) may result in an "execute-only" mapping. The
kernel will internally attempt to allocate and dedicate a
protection key for the purpose of execute-only mappings. This
may not be possible in cases where there are no free protection
keys available. It can also happen, of course, in situations
where there is no hardware support for protection keys.
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/20160729163012.3DDD36C4@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-30 00:30:12 +08:00
|
|
|
#define PKEY_DEDICATED_EXECUTE_ONLY 15
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider the PKEY_DEDICATED_EXECUTE_ONLY key unavailable.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
#define arch_max_pkey() (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE) ? \
|
|
|
|
|
PKEY_DEDICATED_EXECUTE_ONLY : 1)
|
2016-02-13 05:02:32 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2016-02-13 05:02:36 +08:00
|
|
|
extern int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey,
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned long init_val);
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 05:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Try to dedicate one of the protection keys to be used as an
|
|
|
|
|
* execute-only protection key.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
extern int __execute_only_pkey(struct mm_struct *mm);
|
|
|
|
|
static inline int execute_only_pkey(struct mm_struct *mm)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE))
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return __execute_only_pkey(mm);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
extern int __arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
|
|
|
|
|
int prot, int pkey);
|
|
|
|
|
static inline int arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
|
|
|
|
|
int prot, int pkey)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE))
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return __arch_override_mprotect_pkey(vma, prot, pkey);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm: Implement new pkey_mprotect() system call
pkey_mprotect() is just like mprotect, except it also takes a
protection key as an argument. On systems that do not support
protection keys, it still works, but requires that key=0.
Otherwise it does exactly what mprotect does.
I expect it to get used like this, if you want to guarantee that
any mapping you create can *never* be accessed without the right
protection keys set up.
int real_prot = PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE;
pkey = pkey_alloc(0, PKEY_DENY_ACCESS);
ptr = mmap(NULL, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
ret = pkey_mprotect(ptr, PAGE_SIZE, real_prot, pkey);
This way, there is *no* window where the mapping is accessible
since it was always either PROT_NONE or had a protection key set
that denied all access.
We settled on 'unsigned long' for the type of the key here. We
only need 4 bits on x86 today, but I figured that other
architectures might need some more space.
Semantically, we have a bit of a problem if we combine this
syscall with our previously-introduced execute-only support:
What do we do when we mix execute-only pkey use with
pkey_mprotect() use? For instance:
pkey_mprotect(ptr, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_WRITE, 6); // set pkey=6
mprotect(ptr, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_EXEC); // set pkey=X_ONLY_PKEY?
mprotect(ptr, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_WRITE); // is pkey=6 again?
To solve that, we make the plain-mprotect()-initiated execute-only
support only apply to VMAs that have the default protection key (0)
set on them.
Proposed semantics:
1. protection key 0 is special and represents the default,
"unassigned" protection key. It is always allocated.
2. mprotect() never affects a mapping's pkey_mprotect()-assigned
protection key. A protection key of 0 (even if set explicitly)
represents an unassigned protection key.
2a. mprotect(PROT_EXEC) on a mapping with an assigned protection
key may or may not result in a mapping with execute-only
properties. pkey_mprotect() plus pkey_set() on all threads
should be used to _guarantee_ execute-only semantics if this
is not a strong enough semantic.
3. mprotect(PROT_EXEC) may result in an "execute-only" mapping. The
kernel will internally attempt to allocate and dedicate a
protection key for the purpose of execute-only mappings. This
may not be possible in cases where there are no free protection
keys available. It can also happen, of course, in situations
where there is no hardware support for protection keys.
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/20160729163012.3DDD36C4@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2016-07-30 00:30:12 +08:00
|
|
|
extern int __arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey,
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned long init_val);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-02-13 05:02:32 +08:00
|
|
|
#endif /*_ASM_X86_PKEYS_H */
|