On 7/14/23 08:44, GONG, Ruiqi wrote: > When exploiting memory vulnerabilities, "heap spraying" is a common > technique targeting those related to dynamic memory allocation (i.e. the > "heap"), and it plays an important role in a successful exploitation. > Basically, it is to overwrite the memory area of vulnerable object by > triggering allocation in other subsystems or modules and therefore > getting a reference to the targeted memory location. It's usable on > various types of vulnerablity including use after free (UAF), heap out- > of-bound write and etc. > > There are (at least) two reasons why the heap can be sprayed: 1) generic > slab caches are shared among different subsystems and modules, and > 2) dedicated slab caches could be merged with the generic ones. > Currently these two factors cannot be prevented at a low cost: the first > one is a widely used memory allocation mechanism, and shutting down slab > merging completely via `slub_nomerge` would be overkill. > > To efficiently prevent heap spraying, we propose the following approach: > to create multiple copies of generic slab caches that will never be > merged, and random one of them will be used at allocation. The random > selection is based on the address of code that calls `kmalloc()`, which > means it is static at runtime (rather than dynamically determined at > each time of allocation, which could be bypassed by repeatedly spraying > in brute force). In other words, the randomness of cache selection will > be with respect to the code address rather than time, i.e. allocations > in different code paths would most likely pick different caches, > although kmalloc() at each place would use the same cache copy whenever > it is executed. In this way, the vulnerable object and memory allocated > in other subsystems and modules will (most probably) be on different > slab caches, which prevents the object from being sprayed. > > Meanwhile, the static random selection is further enhanced with a > per-boot random seed, which prevents the attacker from finding a usable > kmalloc that happens to pick the same cache with the vulnerable > subsystem/module by analyzing the open source code. In other words, with > the per-boot seed, the random selection is static during each time the > system starts and runs, but not across different system startups. > > The overhead of performance has been tested on a 40-core x86 server by > comparing the results of `perf bench all` between the kernels with and > without this patch based on the latest linux-next kernel, which shows > minor difference. A subset of benchmarks are listed below: > > sched/ sched/ syscall/ mem/ mem/ > messaging pipe basic memcpy memset > (sec) (sec) (sec) (GB/sec) (GB/sec) > > control1 0.019 5.459 0.733 15.258789 51.398026 > control2 0.019 5.439 0.730 16.009221 48.828125 > control3 0.019 5.282 0.735 16.009221 48.828125 > control_avg 0.019 5.393 0.733 15.759077 49.684759 > > experiment1 0.019 5.374 0.741 15.500992 46.502976 > experiment2 0.019 5.440 0.746 16.276042 51.398026 > experiment3 0.019 5.242 0.752 15.258789 51.398026 > experiment_avg 0.019 5.352 0.746 15.678608 49.766343 > > The overhead of memory usage was measured by executing `free` after boot > on a QEMU VM with 1GB total memory, and as expected, it's positively > correlated with # of cache copies: > > control 4 copies 8 copies 16 copies > > total 969.8M 968.2M 968.2M 968.2M > used 20.0M 21.9M 24.1M 26.7M > free 936.9M 933.6M 931.4M 928.6M > available 932.2M 928.8M 926.6M 923.9M > > Co-developed-by: Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: GONG, Ruiqi <gongruiqi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! Pushed to slab/for-6.6/random_kmalloc and for-next.
