Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <c53c03e8-529f-5b72-42ab-f32f50aaab35@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2023 17:00:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] PKEY: Add arch_check_pkey_enforce_api()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Cc:     jeffxu@chromium.org, luto@kernel.org, jorgelo@chromium.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, groeck@chromium.org, jannh@google.com,
        sroettger@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230515130553.2311248-1-jeffxu@chromium.org>
 <20230515130553.2311248-3-jeffxu@chromium.org>
 <6dbbc3da-78c9-8101-d52a-0be47da9d67e@intel.com>
 <CALmYWFtu-WzOTEs2aWU3zMW=KZUjaaL7OTE7hQtHjfwQfQNyEA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALmYWFtu-WzOTEs2aWU3zMW=KZUjaaL7OTE7hQtHjfwQfQNyEA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/18/23 15:51, Jeff Xu wrote:
>> Do you have a solid handle on all call paths that will reach
>> __arch_check_vma_pkey_for_write() and can you ensure they are all
>> non-remote?
> Is this about the attack scenario where the attacker uses ptrace()
> into the chrome process ? if so it is not in our threat model, and
> that is more related to sandboxing on the host.

The attacker would use *some* remote interface.  ptrace() is just one of
those remote interfaces.

> Or is this about io_uring? Yes, io_uring kernel thread breaks our
> expectations of PKRU & user space threads, however I thought the break
> is not just for this - any syscall involved in memory operation will
> break after into io_uring ?

I'm not quite following.

Please just do me a favor: have the io_uring maintainers look at your
proposal.  Make sure that the defenses you are building can work in a
process where io_uring is in use by the benign threads.

Those same folks are pretty familiar with the other, more traditional
I/O syscalls that have in-memory descriptors that control syscall
behavior like readv/writev.  Those also need a close look.

> Other than those, yes, I try to ensure the check is only used at the
> beginning of syscall entry in all cases, which should be non-remote I
> hope.

You're right that synchronous, shallow syscall paths are usually
non-remote.  But those aren't the problem.  The problem is that there
*ARE* remote accesses and those are a potential hole for this whole
mechanism.

Can they be closed?  I don't know.  I honestly don't have a great grasp
on how widespread these things are.  You'll need a much more complete
grasp on them than I have before this thing can go forward.