This easy-to-trigger warning shows up instantly when running
Trinity on a kernel with CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS disabled.
At most this should have been a printk, but the -EINVAL alone should be more
than adequate indicator that something isn't available.
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
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>
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>
Today, mprotect() takes 4 bits of data: PROT_READ/WRITE/EXEC/NONE.
Three of those bits: READ/WRITE/EXEC get translated directly in to
vma->vm_flags by calc_vm_prot_bits(). If a bit is unset in
mprotect()'s 'prot' argument then it must be cleared in vma->vm_flags
during the mprotect() call.
We do this clearing today by first calculating the VMA flags we
want set, then clearing the ones we do not want to inherit from
the original VMA:
vm_flags = calc_vm_prot_bits(prot, key);
...
newflags = vm_flags;
newflags |= (vma->vm_flags & ~(VM_READ | VM_WRITE | VM_EXEC));
However, we *also* want to mask off the original VMA's vm_flags in
which we store the protection key.
To do that, this patch adds a new macro:
ARCH_VM_PKEY_FLAGS
which allows the architecture to specify additional bits that it would
like cleared. We use that to ensure that the VM_PKEY_BIT* bits get
cleared.
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
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/20160729163013.E48D6981@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
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>
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>
The Protection Key Rights for User memory (PKRU) is a 32-bit
user-accessible register. It contains two bits for each
protection key: one to write-disable (WD) access to memory
covered by the key and another to access-disable (AD).
Userspace can read/write the register with the RDPKRU and WRPKRU
instructions. But, the register is saved and restored with the
XSAVE family of instructions, which means we have to treat it
like a floating point register.
The kernel needs to write to the register if it wants to
implement execute-only memory or if it implements a system call
to change PKRU.
To do this, we need to create a 'pkru_state' buffer, read the old
contents in to it, modify it, and then tell the FPU code that
there is modified data in there so it can (possibly) move the
buffer back in to the registers.
This uses the fpu__xfeature_set_state() function that we defined
in the previous patch.
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210236.0BE13217@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
The syscall-level code is passed a protection key and need to
return an appropriate error code if the protection key is bogus.
We will be using this in subsequent patches.
Note that this also begins a series of arch-specific calls that
we need to expose in otherwise arch-independent code. We create
a linux/pkeys.h header where we will put *all* the stubs for
these functions.
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210232.774EEAAB@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
