On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 03:56:27PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 6/19/24 9:33 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > Dedicated caches are available for fixed size allocations via > > kmem_cache_alloc(), but for dynamically sized allocations there is only > > the global kmalloc API's set of buckets available. This means it isn't > > possible to separate specific sets of dynamically sized allocations into > > a separate collection of caches. > > > > This leads to a use-after-free exploitation weakness in the Linux > > kernel since many heap memory spraying/grooming attacks depend on using > > userspace-controllable dynamically sized allocations to collide with > > fixed size allocations that end up in same cache. > > > > While CONFIG_RANDOM_KMALLOC_CACHES provides a probabilistic defense > > against these kinds of "type confusion" attacks, including for fixed > > same-size heap objects, we can create a complementary deterministic > > defense for dynamically sized allocations that are directly user > > controlled. Addressing these cases is limited in scope, so isolating these > > kinds of interfaces will not become an unbounded game of whack-a-mole. For > > example, many pass through memdup_user(), making isolation there very > > effective. > > > > In order to isolate user-controllable dynamically-sized > > allocations from the common system kmalloc allocations, introduce > > kmem_buckets_create(), which behaves like kmem_cache_create(). Introduce > > kmem_buckets_alloc(), which behaves like kmem_cache_alloc(). Introduce > > kmem_buckets_alloc_track_caller() for where caller tracking is > > needed. Introduce kmem_buckets_valloc() for cases where vmalloc fallback > > is needed. > > > > This can also be used in the future to extend allocation profiling's use > > of code tagging to implement per-caller allocation cache isolation[1] > > even for dynamic allocations. > > > > Memory allocation pinning[2] is still needed to plug the Use-After-Free > > cross-allocator weakness, but that is an existing and separate issue > > which is complementary to this improvement. Development continues for > > that feature via the SLAB_VIRTUAL[3] series (which could also provide > > guard pages -- another complementary improvement). > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202402211449.401382D2AF@keescook [1] > > Link: https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2021/10/how-simple-linux-kernel-memory.html [2] > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230915105933.495735-1-matteorizzo@xxxxxxxxxx/ [3] > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > include/linux/slab.h | 13 ++++++++ > > mm/slab_common.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 91 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h > > index 8d0800c7579a..3698b15b6138 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/slab.h > > +++ b/include/linux/slab.h > > @@ -549,6 +549,11 @@ void *kmem_cache_alloc_lru_noprof(struct kmem_cache *s, struct list_lru *lru, > > > > void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *objp); > > > > +kmem_buckets *kmem_buckets_create(const char *name, unsigned int align, > > + slab_flags_t flags, > > + unsigned int useroffset, unsigned int usersize, > > + void (*ctor)(void *)); > > I'd drop the ctor, I can't imagine how it would be used with variable-sized > allocations. I've kept it because for "kmalloc wrapper" APIs, e.g. devm_kmalloc(), there is some "housekeeping" that gets done explicitly right now that I think would be better served by using a ctor in the future. These APIs are variable-sized, but have a fixed size header, so they have a "minimum size" that the ctor can still operate on, etc. > Probably also "align" doesn't make much sense since we're just > copying the kmalloc cache sizes and its implicit alignment of any > power-of-two allocations. Yeah, that's probably true. I kept it since I wanted to mirror kmem_cache_create() to make this API more familiar looking. > I don't think any current kmalloc user would > suddenly need either of those as you convert it to buckets, and definitely > not any user converted automatically by the code tagging. Right, it's not needed for either the explicit users nor the future automatic users. But since these arguments are available internally, there seems to be future utility, it's not fast path, and it made things feel like the existing API, I'd kind of like to keep it. But all that said, if you really don't want it, then sure I can drop those arguments. Adding them back in the future shouldn't be too much churn. -- Kees Cook
