On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:34 PM Theo de Raadt <deraadt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:49 AM Theo de Raadt <deraadt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Regarding these pieces > > > > > > > The PROT_SEAL bit in prot field of mmap(). When present, it marks > > > > the map sealed since creation. > > > > > > OpenBSD won't be doing this. I had PROT_IMMUTABLE as a draft. In my > > > research I found basically zero circumstances when you userland does > > > that. The most common circumstance is you create a RW mapping, fill it, > > > and then change to a more restrictve mapping, and lock it. > > > > > > There are a few regions in the addressspace that can be locked while RW. > > > For instance, the stack. But the kernel does that, not userland. I > > > found regions where the kernel wants to do this to the address space, > > > but there is no need to export useless functionality to userland. > > > > > I have a feeling that most apps that need to use mmap() in their code > > are likely using RW mappings. Adding sealing to mmap() could stop > > those mappings from being executable. Of course, those apps would > > need to change their code. We can't do it for them. > > I don't have a feeling about it. > > I spent a year engineering a complete system which exercises the maximum > amount of memory you can lock. > > I saw nothing like what you are describing. I had PROT_IMMUTABLE in my > drafts, and saw it turning into a dangerous anti-pattern. > I'm sorry, I have never looked at one line of openBSD code, prototype or not, nor did I install openBSD before. Because of this situation on my side, I failed to understand why you have such a strong opinion on PROC_SEAL in mmap() in linux kernel, based on your own OpenBSD's experience ? For PROT_SEAL in mmap(), I see it as a good and reasonable suggestion raised during the RFC process, and incorporate it into the patch set, there is nothing more and nothing less. If openBSD doesn't want it, that is fine to me, it is not that I'm trying to force this into openBSD's kernel, I understand it is a different code base. > > Also, I believe adding this to mmap() has no downsides, only > > performance gain, as Pedro Falcato pointed out in [1]. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAKbZUD2A+=bp_sd+Q0Yif7NJqMu8p__eb4yguq0agEcmLH8SDQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Are you joking? You don't have any code doing that today. More feelings? > > OpenBSD userland has zero places it can use mmap() MAP_IMMUTABLE. > > It has two places where it has mprotect() + mimmutable() adjacent to each > other, two codepaths for late mprotect() of RELRO, and then make the RELRO > immutable. > > I think this idea is a premature optimization, and intentionally incompatible. > > Like I say, I had a similar MAP_ flag for mprotect() and mmap() in my > development trees, and I recognized it was pointless, distracting developers > into the wrong patterns, and I threw it out. > > > > OpenBSD now uses this for a high percent of the address space. It might > > > be worth re-reading a description of the split of responsibility regarding > > > who locks different types of memory in a process; > > > - kernel (the majority, based upon what ELF layout tell us), > > > - shared library linker (the next majority, dealing with shared > > > library mappings and left-overs not determinable at kernel time), > > > - libc (a small minority, mostly regarding forced mutable objects) > > > - and the applications themselves (only 1 application today) > > > > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/915662/ > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > We definately won't be doing this. We allow a process to lock any and all > > > it's memory that isn't locked already, even if it means it is shooting > > > itself in the foot. > > > > > > I think you are going to severely hurt the power of this mechanism, > > > because you won't be able to lock memory that has been allocated by a > > > different callsite not under your source-code control which lacks the > > > MAP_SEALABLE flag. (Which is extremely common with the system-parts of > > > a process, meaning not just libc but kernel allocated objects). > > > > > MAP_SEALABLE was an open discussion item called out on V3 [2] and V4 [3]. > > > > I acknowledge that additional coordination would be required if > > mapping were to be allocated by one software component and sealed in > > another. However, this is feasible. > > > > Considering the side effect of not having this flag (as discussed in > > V3/V4) and the significant implications of altering the lifetime of > > the mapping (since unmapping would not be possible), I believe it is > > reasonable to expect developers to exercise additional care and > > caution when utilizing memory sealing. > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20231212231706.2680890-2-jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240104185138.169307-1-jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I disagree *strongly*. Developers need to exercise additional care on > memory, period. Memory sealing issues is the least of their worries. > > (Except for handling RELRO, but only the ld.so developers will lose > their hair). > > > OK, so mseal and mimmutable are very different. > > mimmutable can be used by any developer on the address space easily. > > mseal requires control of the whole stack between allocation and consumption. > > I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand how dangerous this MAP_SEALABLE > proposal is because of the difficulties it will create for use. > > The immutable memory management we have today in OpenBSD would completely > impossible with such a flag. Seperation between allocator (that doesn't know > what is going to happen), and consumer (that does know), is completely common > in the systems environment (meaning the interaction between DSO, libc, other > libraries, and the underside of applications). > > This is not not like an application where you can simply sprinkle the flag > into the mmap() calls that cause you problems. That mmap() call is now in > someone else's code, and you CANNOT gain security advantage unless you > convince them to gain an understanding of what that flag means -- and it is > a flag that other Linux variants don't have, not even in their #include > files. > I respect your reasoning with OpenBSD, but do you have a real example that this will be problematic for linux ? In my opinion, the extra communication part with mmap()'s owner has its pros and cons. The cons is what you mentioned: extra time for convincing and approval. The pro is that there won't be unexpected behavior from the code owner point of view, once this communication process is completed. It can reduce the possibility of introducing bugs. So far, I do not have enough information to say this is a bad idea. if you can provide a real example in the context of linux, e.g. DSO and libc you mentioned with details, that will be helpful.
