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;
Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2023 20:39:49 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/32] mm: Bring back vmalloc_exec
Message-ID: <20230620003949.kjs2z524hodwwcnt@moria.home.lan>
References: <20230509165657.1735798-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <20230509165657.1735798-8-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <3508afc0-6f03-a971-e716-999a7373951f@wdc.com>
 <202305111525.67001E5C4@keescook>
 <ZF6Ibvi8U9B+mV1d@moria.home.lan>
 <202305161401.F1E3ACFAC@keescook>
 <ZGPzocRpSlg+4vgN@moria.home.lan>
 <1d249326-e3dd-9c9d-7b53-2fffeb39bfb4@kernel.org>
 <ZI3Sh6p8b4FcP0Y2@moria.home.lan>
 <202306191228.6A98FD25@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202306191228.6A98FD25@keescook>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 12:45:43PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> I think there's a misunderstanding here about the threat model I'm
> interested in protecting against for JITs. While making sure the VM of a
> JIT is safe in itself, that's separate from what I'm concerned about.
> 
> The threat model is about flaws _elsewhere_ in the kernel that can
> leverage the JIT machinery to convert a "write anything anywhere anytime"
> exploit primitive into an "execute anything" primitive. Arguments can
> be made to say "a write anything flaw means the total collapse of the
> security model so there's no point defending against it", but both that
> type of flaw and the slippery slope argument don't stand up well to
> real-world situations.

Hey Kees, thanks for the explanation - I don't think this is a concern
for what bcachefs is doing, since we're not doing a full jit. The unpack
functions we generate only write to the 40 bytes pointed to by rsi; not
terribly useful as an execute anything primitive :)