Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: mark tramp_pg_dir read-only

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:23:41PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 June 2018 at 17:20, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Ard,
> >
> > Sorry, I forgot to reply to this.
> >
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:53:20AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 30 May 2018 at 11:14, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:48:06PM +0800, YaoJun wrote:
> >> >> To protect against KSMA(Kernel Space Mirroring Attack), make
> >> >> tramp_pg_dir read-only. The principle of KSMA is to insert a
> >> >> carefully constructed PGD entry into the translation table.
> >> >> The type of this entry is block, which maps the kernel text
> >> >> and its access permissions bits are 01. The user process can
> >> >> then modify kernel text directly through this mapping. In this
> >> >> way, an arbitrary write can be converted to multiple arbitrary
> >> >> writes.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: YaoJun <yaojun8558363@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 4 ++++
> >> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> >> >> index 2dbb2c9f1ec1..ac4b22c7e435 100644
> >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> >> >> @@ -551,6 +551,10 @@ static int __init map_entry_trampoline(void)
> >> >>       __create_pgd_mapping(tramp_pg_dir, pa_start, TRAMP_VALIAS, PAGE_SIZE,
> >> >>                            prot, pgd_pgtable_alloc, 0);
> >> >>
> >> >> +     update_mapping_prot(__pa_symbol(tramp_pg_dir),
> >> >> +                             (unsigned long)tramp_pg_dir,
> >> >> +                             PGD_SIZE, PAGE_KERNEL_RO);
> >> >
> >> > Hmm, I like the idea but is there a risk that the page table has been mapped
> >> > as part of a block entry, which we can't safely split at this point (i.e.
> >> > we'll run into one of the BUG_ONs in the mapping code)?
> >> >
> >>
> >> We'd need to create a separate segment for it initially so the mapping
> >> is already at the right granularity.
> >
> > Why do you think that's the case? I can't see anything that guarantees this
> > for the page table itself.
> >
> 
> We'd need to pass NO_BLOCK_MAPPINGS to map_kernel_segment(),
> obviously, but that shouldn't hurt since that segment is relatively
> tiny anyway.

Ah right, with NO_BLOCK_MAPPINGS | NO_CONT_MAPPINGS, I agree that we're good.
Ideally, we'd move {idmap,swapper,tramp}_pg_dir into .rodata...

Will