On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:06 PM Liam R. Howlett
<Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [240124 12:50]:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:15 AM Liam R. Howlett
> > <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > * jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [240122 10:29]:
> > > > From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > The new mseal() is an syscall on 64 bit CPU, and with
> > > > following signature:
> > > >
> > > > int mseal(void addr, size_t len, unsigned long flags)
> > > > addr/len: memory range.
> > > > flags: reserved.
> > > >
> > > > mseal() blocks following operations for the given memory range.
> > > >
> > > > 1> Unmapping, moving to another location, and shrinking the size,
> > > > via munmap() and mremap(), can leave an empty space, therefore can
> > > > be replaced with a VMA with a new set of attributes.
> > > >
> > > > 2> Moving or expanding a different VMA into the current location,
> > > > via mremap().
> > > >
> > > > 3> Modifying a VMA via mmap(MAP_FIXED).
> > > >
> > > > 4> Size expansion, via mremap(), does not appear to pose any specific
> > > > risks to sealed VMAs. It is included anyway because the use case is
> > > > unclear. In any case, users can rely on merging to expand a sealed VMA.
> > > >
> > > > 5> mprotect() and pkey_mprotect().
> > > >
> > > > 6> Some destructive madvice() behaviors (e.g. MADV_DONTNEED) for anonymous
> > > > memory, when users don't have write permission to the memory. Those
> > > > behaviors can alter region contents by discarding pages, effectively a
> > > > memset(0) for anonymous memory.
> > > >
> > > > In addition: mmap() has two related changes.
> > > >
> > > > The PROT_SEAL bit in prot field of mmap(). When present, it marks
> > > > the map sealed since creation.
> > > >
> > > > The MAP_SEALABLE bit in the flags field of mmap(). When present, it marks
> > > > the map as sealable. A map created without MAP_SEALABLE will not support
> > > > sealing, i.e. mseal() will fail.
> > > >
> > > > Applications that don't care about sealing will expect their behavior
> > > > unchanged. For those that need sealing support, opt-in by adding
> > > > MAP_SEALABLE in mmap().
> > > >
> > > > I would like to formally acknowledge the valuable contributions
> > > > received during the RFC process, which were instrumental
> > > > in shaping this patch:
> > > >
> > > > Jann Horn: raising awareness and providing valuable insights on the
> > > > destructive madvise operations.
> > > > Linus Torvalds: assisting in defining system call signature and scope.
> > > > Pedro Falcato: suggesting sealing in the mmap().
> > > > Theo de Raadt: sharing the experiences and insights gained from
> > > > implementing mimmutable() in OpenBSD.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, the idea that inspired this patch comes from Stephen Röttger’s
> > > > work in Chrome V8 CFI.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/mm.h | 48 ++++
> > > > include/linux/syscalls.h | 1 +
> > > > include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h | 8 +
> > > > mm/Makefile | 4 +
> > > > mm/madvise.c | 12 +
> > > > mm/mmap.c | 27 ++
> > > > mm/mprotect.c | 10 +
> > > > mm/mremap.c | 31 +++
> > > > mm/mseal.c | 343 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 9 files changed, 484 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 mm/mseal.c
> > > >
>
> ...
>
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > > > index b78e83d351d2..32bc2179aed0 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > > > @@ -1213,6 +1213,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
> > > > {
> > > > struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> > > > int pkey = 0;
> > > > + unsigned long vm_seals;
> > > >
> > > > *populate = 0;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1233,6 +1234,8 @@ unsigned long do_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
> > > > if (flags & MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE)
> > > > flags |= MAP_FIXED;
> > > >
> > > > + vm_seals = get_mmap_seals(prot, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > if (!(flags & MAP_FIXED))
> > > > addr = round_hint_to_min(addr);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1261,6 +1264,13 @@ unsigned long do_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
> > > > return -EEXIST;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Check if the address range is sealed for do_mmap().
> > > > + * can_modify_mm assumes we have acquired the lock on MM.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (!can_modify_mm(mm, addr, addr + len))
> > > > + return -EPERM;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > This is called after get_unmapped_area(), so this area is either going
> > > to be MAP_FIXED and return the "hint" addr or it's going to be empty.
> > > You can probably avoid walking the VMAs in the non-FIXED case. This
> > > would remove the overhead of your check in the most common case.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for flagging this!
> >
> > I wasn't entirely sure about get_unmapped_area() after reading the
> > code, It calls a few variants of arch_get_unmapped_area_xxx()
> > functions.
> >
> > e.g. it seems like the generic_get_unmapped_area_topdown is returning
> > a non-null address even when MAP_FIXED is set to false
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > generic_get_unmapped_area_topdown (
> > ...
> > if (flags & MAP_FIXED) <-- MAP_FIXED case.
> > return addr;
> >
> > /* requesting a specific address */
> > if (addr) { <-- note not MAP_FIXED
> > addr = PAGE_ALIGN(addr);
> > vma = find_vma_prev(mm, addr, &prev);
> > if (mmap_end - len >= addr && addr >= mmap_min_addr &&
> > (!vma || addr + len <= vm_start_gap(vma)) &&
> > (!prev || addr >= vm_end_gap(prev)))
> > return addr; <--- note return not null addr here.
> > }
>
> Sorry, I was not clear. Either MAP_FIXED will just return the addr, or
> the addr that is returned has no VMA (the memory area is empty). This
> function finds a gap to place your data and the gap is (at least) as big
> as you want (usually oversized, but that doesn't matter here). The
> mmap_lock is held, so we know it's going to remain empty.
>
> So there are two scenarios:
> 1. MAP_FIXED which may or may not have a VMA over the range
> 2. An address which has no VMA over the range
>
> Anyways, this is probably not needed, because of what I say later.
>
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I thought also about adding a check for addr != null instead, i.e.
> > if (addr && !can_modify_mm(mm, addr, addr + len))
> > return -EPERM;
> > }
> >
> > But using MAP_FIXED to allocate memory at address 0 is legit, e.g.
> > allocating a PROT_NONE | PROT_SEAL at address 0.
> >
> > Another factor to consider is: what will be the cost of passing an
> > empty address into can_modify_mm() ? the search will be 0 to len.
>
> Almost always zero VMAs to check, it's not worth optimising. The maple
> tree will walk to the first range and it'll be 0 to some very large
> number, most likely.
>
Got you.
> >
> > > > if (prot == PROT_EXEC) {
> > > > pkey = execute_only_pkey(mm);
> > > > if (pkey < 0)
> > > > @@ -1376,6 +1386,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
> > > > vm_flags |= VM_NORESERVE;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + vm_flags |= vm_seals;
> > > > addr = mmap_region(file, addr, len, vm_flags, pgoff, uf);
> > > > if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(addr) &&
> > > > ((vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) ||
> > > > @@ -2679,6 +2690,14 @@ int do_vmi_munmap(struct vma_iterator *vmi, struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > if (end == start)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Check if memory is sealed before arch_unmap.
> > > > + * Prevent unmapping a sealed VMA.
> > > > + * can_modify_mm assumes we have acquired the lock on MM.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (!can_modify_mm(mm, start, end))
> > > > + return -EPERM;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > This function is currently called from mmap_region(), so we are going to
> > > run this check twice as you have it; once in do_mmap() then again in
> > > mma_region() -> do_vmi_munmap(). This effectively doubles your impact
> > > to MAP_FIXED calls.
> > >
> > Yes. To address this would require a new flag in the do_vmi_munmap(),
> > after passing the first check in mmap(), we could set the flag as false,
> > so do_vmi_munmap() would not check it again.
> >
> > However, this approach was attempted in v1 and V2 of the patch [1] [2],
> > and was strongly opposed by Linus. It was considered as too random and
> > decreased the readability.
>
> Oh yes, I recall that now. He was not pleased.
>
> >
> > Below is my text in V2: [3]
> >
> > "When handing the mmap/munmap/mremap/mmap, once the code passed
> > can_modify_mm(), it means the memory area is not sealed, if the code
> > continues to call the other utility functions, we don't need to check
> > the seal again. This is the case for mremap(), the seal of src address
> > and dest address (when applicable) are checked first, later when the
> > code calls do_vmi_munmap(), it no longer needs to check the seal
> > again."
> >
> > Considering this is the MAP_FIXED case, and maybe that is not used
> > that often in practice, I think this is acceptable performance-wise,
> > unless you know another solution to help this.
>
> Okay, sure, I haven't been yelled at on the ML for a few weeks. Here
> goes:
>
> do_mmap() will call get_unmapped_area(), which will return an empty area
> (no need to check mseal, I hope - or we have larger issues here) or a
> MAP_FIXED address.
>
> do_mmap() will pass the address along to mmap_region()
>
> mmap_region() will then call do_vmi_munmap() - which will either remove
> the VMA(s) in the way, or do nothing... or error.
>
> mmap_region() will return -ENOMEM in the case of an error returned from
> do_vmi_munmap() today. Change that to return the error code, and let
> do_vmi_munmap() do the mseal check. If mseal check fails then the error
> is propagated the same way -ENOMEM is propagated today.
>
> This relies on the fact that we only really need to check the mseal
> status of existing VMAs and we can only really map over existing VMAs by
> first munmapping them.
>
> It does move your error return to much later in the call stack, but it
> removes duplicate work and less code. Considering this should be a rare
> event, I don't think that's of concern.
>
I think that is a great idea, I will try to implement it and get back
to you on this.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231016143828.647848-6-jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231017090815.1067790-6-jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CALmYWFux2m=9189Gs0o8-xhPNW4dnFvtqj7ptcT5QvzxVgfvYQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> >
> > > > /* arch_unmap() might do unmaps itself. */
> > > > arch_unmap(mm, start, end);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -3102,6 +3121,14 @@ int do_vma_munmap(struct vma_iterator *vmi, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > > {
> > > > struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Check if memory is sealed before arch_unmap.
> > > > + * Prevent unmapping a sealed VMA.
> > > > + * can_modify_mm assumes we have acquired the lock on MM.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (!can_modify_mm(mm, start, end))
> > > > + return -EPERM;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > I am sure you've looked at the callers, from what I found there are two:
> > >
> > > The brk call uses this function, so it may check more than one VMA in
> > > that path. Will the brk VMAs potentially be msealed? I guess someone
> > > could do that?
> > >
> > > The other place this is use is in ipc/shm.c whhere the start/end is just
> > > the vma start/end, so we only really need to check that one vma.
> > >
> > Yes. Those two cases were looked at, and was the main reason that
> > MAP_SEALABLE is introduced as part of mmap().
> >
> > As in the open discussion of the V3/V4 patch: [4] [5]
> >
> > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20231212231706.2680890-1-jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/
> > [5] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240104185138.169307-3-jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/
> >
> > Copied here for ease of reading:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > During the development of V3, I had new questions and thoughts and
> > wished to discuss.
> >
> > 1> shm/aio
> > From reading the code, it seems to me that aio/shm can mmap/munmap
> > maps on behalf of userspace, e.g. ksys_shmdt() in shm.c. The lifetime
> > of those mapping are not tied to the lifetime of the process. If those
> > memories are sealed from userspace, then unmap will fail. This isn’t a
> > huge problem, since the memory will eventually be freed at exit or
> > exec. However, it feels like the solution is not complete, because of
> > the leaks in VMA address space during the lifetime of the process.
> >
> > 2> Brk (heap/stack)
> > Currently, userspace applications can seal parts of the heap by
> > calling malloc() and mseal(). This raises the question of what the
> > expected behavior is when sealing the heap is attempted.
> >
> > let's assume following calls from user space:
> >
> > ptr = malloc(size);
> > mprotect(ptr, size, RO);
> > mseal(ptr, size, SEAL_PROT_PKEY);
> > free(ptr);
> >
> > Technically, before mseal() is added, the user can change the
> > protection of the heap by calling mprotect(RO). As long as the user
> > changes the protection back to RW before free(), the memory can be
> > reused.
> >
> > Adding mseal() into picture, however, the heap is then sealed
> > partially, user can still free it, but the memory remains to be RO,
> > and the result of brk-shrink is nondeterministic, depending on if
> > munmap() will try to free the sealed memory.(brk uses munmap to shrink
> > the heap).
> >
> > 3> Above two cases led to the third topic:
> > There one option to address the problem mentioned above.
> > Option 1: A “MAP_SEALABLE” flag in mmap().
> > If a map is created without this flag, the mseal() operation will
> > fail. Applications that are not concerned with sealing will expect
> > their behavior to be unchanged. For those that are concerned, adding a
> > flag at mmap time to opt in is not difficult. For the short term, this
> > solves problems 1 and 2 above. The memory in shm/aio/brk will not have
> > the MAP_SEALABLE flag at mmap(), and the same is true for the heap.
> >
> > If we choose not to go with path, all mapping will by default
> > sealable. We could document above mentioned limitations so devs are
> > more careful at the time to choose what memory to seal. I think
> > deny of service through mseal() by attacker is probably not a concern,
> > if attackers have access to mseal() and unsealed memory, then they can
> > also do other harmful thing to the memory, such as munmap, etc.
> >
> > 4>
> > I think it might be possible to seal the stack or other special
> > mappings created at runtime (vdso, vsyscall, vvar). This means we can
> > enforce and seal W^X for certain types of application. For instance,
> > the stack is typically used in read-write mode, but in some cases, it
> > can become executable. To defend against unintented addition of
> > executable bit to stack, we could let the application to seal it.
> >
> > Sealing the heap (for adding X) requires special handling, since the
> > heap can shrink, and shrink is implemented through munmap().
> >
> > Indeed, it might be possible that all virtual memory accessible to user
> > space, regardless of its usage pattern, could be sealed. However, this
> > would require additional research and development work.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > > Is there a way to avoid walking the tree for the single known VMA?
> > Are you thinking about a hash table to record brk VMA ? or a dedicated
> > tree for sealed VMAs? possible. code will be a lot more though.
>
> No, instead of calling a loop to walk the tree to find the same VMA,
> just check the single VMA.
>
> ipc/shm.c: do_vma_munmap(&vmi, vma, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end...
>
> So if you just check the single VMA then we don't need to worry about
> re-walking.
>
If you meant:
have a new function do_single_vma_munmap() which checks sealing flag
and munmap for one VMA, and is used by ipc/shm.c
Yes, we can have that.
> I think this is a moot point if my outline above works.
>
Yes, I agree. that has performance impact only for shm. We can do
this optimationzation as a follow-up patch set.
> >
> > > Does
> > > it make sense to deny mseal writing to brk VMAs?
> > >
> > Yes. It makes sense. Since brk memory doesn't have MAP_SEALABLE at
> > this moment, mseal will fail even if someone tries to seal it.
> > Sealing brk memory would require more research and design.
> >
> > >
> > > > arch_unmap(mm, start, end);
> > > > return do_vmi_align_munmap(vmi, vma, mm, start, end, uf, unlock);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah, I see them now. Yes, this is what I expected to see. Does this not
> > > have any impact on mmap/munmap benchmarks?
> > >
> > Thanks for bringing this topic! I'm kind of hoping for performance related
> > questions.
> >
> > I haven't done any benchmarks, due to lack of knowledge on how those
> > tests are usually performed.
> >
> > For mseal(), since it will be called only in a few places (libc/elf
> > loading), I'm expecting no real world impact, and that can be
> > measured when we have implementations in place in libc and
> > elf-loading.
> >
> > The hot path could be on mmap() and munmap(), as you pointed out.
> >
> > mmap() was discussed above (adding a check for FIXED )
>
> That can probably be dropped as discussed above.
>
Ok.
> >
> > munmap(), There is a cost in calling can_modify_mm(). I thought about
> > calling can_modify_vma in do_vmi_align_munmap, but there are two reasons:
> >
> > a. it skips arch_unmap, and arch_unmap can unmap the memory.
> > b. Current logic of checking sealing is: if one of VMAs between start to end is
> > sealed, mprotect/mmap/munmap will fail without any of VMAs being modified.
> > This means we will need additional walking over the VMA tree.
>
> Certainly, but it comes at a cost. I was just surprised with the
> statement that there is no negative from the previous discussion, as I
> replied to the cover letter.
>
Ah, the context of my "no downside" comment is specifically to
"having the PROT_SEAL flag in mmap()", i.e. combine mmap() and
mseal() in one call.
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Apply sealing.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static int apply_mm_seal(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long nstart;
> > > > + struct vm_area_struct *vma, *prev;
> > > > +
> > > > + VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, current->mm, start);
> > > > +
> > > > + vma = vma_iter_load(&vmi);
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Note: check_mm_seal should already checked ENOMEM case.
> > > > + * so vma should not be null, same for the other ENOMEM cases.
> > >
> > > The start to end is contiguous, right?
> > Yes. check_mm_seal makes sure the start to end is contiguous.
> >
> > >
> > > > + */
> > > > + prev = vma_prev(&vmi);
> > > > + if (start > vma->vm_start)
> > > > + prev = vma;
> > > > +
> > > > + nstart = start;
> > > > + for_each_vma_range(vmi, vma, end) {
> > > > + int error;
> > > > + unsigned long tmp;
> > > > + vm_flags_t newflags;
> > > > +
> > > > + newflags = vma->vm_flags | VM_SEALED;
> > > > + tmp = vma->vm_end;
> > > > + if (tmp > end)
> > > > + tmp = end;
> > > > + error = mseal_fixup(&vmi, vma, &prev, nstart, tmp, newflags);
> > > > + if (error)
> > > > + return error;
> > >
> > > > + tmp = vma_iter_end(&vmi);
> > > > + nstart = tmp;
> > >
> > > You set tmp before using it unconditionally to vma->vm_end above, so you
> > > can set nstart = vma_iter_end(&vmi) here. But, also we know the
> > > VMAs are contiguous from your check_mm_seal() call, so we know nstart ==
> > > vma->vm_start on the next loop.
> > The code is almost the same as in mlock.c, except that we know the
> > VMAs are contiguous, so we don't check for some of the ENOMEM cases.
> > There might be ways to improve this code. For ease of code review, I
> > choose a consistency (same as mlock) for now.
>
> Yes, I thought that was the case. tmp is updated in that code to ensure
> we have reached the end of the range without a gap at the end. Since
> you already checked that the VMAs are contiguous, the last tmp update in
> your loop is not needed.
>
> Thanks,
> Liam
