Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190415060918.3766-1-elena.reshetova@intel.com>
 <20190415072535.GA51449@gmail.com> <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612BA4C4F90F@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20190416073444.GC127769@gmail.com> <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612BA4C51962@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20190416120822.GV11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <01914abbfc1a4053897d8d87a63e3411@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20190416154348.GB3004@mit.edu> <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612BA4C52338@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <9cf586757eb44f2c8f167abf078da921@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20190417151555.GG4686@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190417151555.GG4686@mit.edu>
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:40:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLhbBh8NjQ9wpsJ=82PXV1AnRHOFpq8Smd+Qjg+pe1TVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/entry/64: randomize kernel stack offset upon syscall
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        "luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>,
        "luto@amacapital.net" <luto@amacapital.net>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "jpoimboe@redhat.com" <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        "keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "jannh@google.com" <jannh@google.com>,
        "Perla, Enrico" <enrico.perla@intel.com>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:17 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:28:35AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> >
> > If you can guarantee back to back requests on the PRNG then it is probably
> > possible to recalculate its state from 'bits of state'/5 calls.
> > Depend on the PRNG this might be computationally expensive.
> > For some PRNG it will be absolutely trivial.
> > ...
> > Stirring in a little bit of entropy doesn't help much either.
> > The entropy bits are effectively initial state bits.
> > Add 4 in with each request and 128 outputs gives 640 linear
> > equations in the (128 + 4 * 128) unknowns - still solvable.
>
> This is basically a scenario where the attacker has already taken
> control of Ring 3 execution and the question is how hard is it for
> them to perform privilege escalation attack to ring 0, right?  I'm
> sure the security folks will think I'm defeatist, but my personal rule
> of thumb is if the attacker has ring 3 control, you've already lost
> --- I figure there are so many zero days that getting ring 0 control
> is a foregone conclusion.  :-(

I think this attitude comes from Linux traditionally having had such a
weak line between ring 3 and ring 0. That's what we're trying to fix,
generally speaking. :)

> So that basically means if we want to protect against this, we're
> going to do something which involves Real Crypto (tm).  Whether that's
> RDRAND, or using Chacha20, etc., or something that has some attack
> resistance, such as "half MD5", etc., but emminently crackable by
> brute force, is essentially a overhead vs. security argument, and what
> it is we are willing to pay.

I wonder how a separate per-cpu state combined with frequent reseeding
would compare to chacha20 (or RDRAND)?

Another point to consider is that this weakness depends on a separate
bug existing, which is becoming less and less likely, given the
always-init options now available. I don't think we should try to
over-engineer this too much. Best-effort here seems fine. Using a
stack leak when the stack is randomized may also prove difficult, so
there's some chicken-and-egg problems with the proposed threat...

-- 
Kees Cook