On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Kees Cook wrote: > Right. This is about blocking the escalation of attack capability. For > slab object overflow flaws, there are mainly two exploitation methods: > adjacent allocated object overwrite and adjacent freed object > overwrite (i.e. a freelist pointer overwrite). The first attack > depends heavily on which slab cache (and therefore which structures) > has been exposed by the bug. It's a very narrow and specific attack > method. The freelist attack is entirely general purpose since it > provides a reliable way to gain arbitrary write capabilities. > Protecting against that attack greatly narrows the options for an > attacker which makes attacks more expensive to create and possibly > less reliable (and reliability is crucial to successful attacks). The simplest thing here is to vary the location of the freelist pointer. That way you cannot hit the freepointer in a deterministic way The freepointer is put at offset 0 right now. But you could put it anywhere in the object. Index: linux/mm/slub.c =================================================================== --- linux.orig/mm/slub.c +++ linux/mm/slub.c @@ -3467,7 +3467,8 @@ static int calculate_sizes(struct kmem_c */ s->offset = size; size += sizeof(void *); - } + } else + s->offset = s->size / sizeof(void *) * <insert random chance logic here> #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG if (flags & SLAB_STORE_USER) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
