[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v7 00/16] Add support for eXclusive Page Frame Ownership
On 1/11/19 2:06 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:42 PM Dave Hansen <> wrote:
>>>> The second process could easily have the page's old TLB entry. It could
>>>> abuse that entry as long as that CPU doesn't context switch
>>>> (switch_mm_irqs_off()) or otherwise flush the TLB entry.
>>> That is an interesting scenario. Working through this scenario, physmap
>>> TLB entry for a page is flushed on the local processor when the page is
>>> allocated to userspace, in xpfo_alloc_pages(). When the userspace passes
>>> page back into kernel, that page is mapped into kernel space using a va
>>> from kmap pool in xpfo_kmap() which can be different for each new
>>> mapping of the same page. The physical page is unmapped from kernel on
>>> the way back from kernel to userspace by xpfo_kunmap(). So two processes
>>> on different CPUs sharing same physical page might not be seeing the
>>> same virtual address for that page while they are in the kernel, as long
>>> as it is an address from kmap pool. ret2dir attack relies upon being
>>> able to craft a predictable virtual address in the kernel physmap for a
>>> physical page and redirect execution to that address. Does that sound right?
>> All processes share one set of kernel page tables. Or, did your patches
>> change that somehow that I missed?
>> Since they share the page tables, they implicitly share kmap*()
>> mappings. kmap_atomic() is not *used* by more than one CPU, but the
>> mapping is accessible and at least exists for all processors.
>> I'm basically assuming that any entry mapped in a shared page table is
>> exploitable on any CPU regardless of where we logically *want* it to be
>> used.
> We can, very easily, have kernel mappings that are private to a given
> mm. Maybe this is useful here.

That sounds like an interesting idea. kmap mappings would be a good
candidate for that. Those are temporary mappings and should only be
valid for one process.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys]
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-12 00:26    [W:0.065 / U:2.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site