This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Alternative libio vtable hardening approach
- From: Kees Cook <keescook at chromium dot org>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Yunlian Jiang <yunlian at google dot com>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:23:41 -0700
- Subject: Re: Alternative libio vtable hardening approach
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <b34105f2-adcb-9347-73c0-43079729c418 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I have implemented a completely different approach to vtable hardening.
> The basic idea is to put all libc vtables into a single array, and then
> check whether the vtable pointer is within that array.
> There is a new flag, IO_accept_foreign_vtables, which is initially false and
> set to true to indicate that vtables may have been defined outside of libc.
> This allows us to preserve full backwards compatibility.
> The attached patch is not completely finished. We need to disable vtable
> validation on both sides of a static dlopen boundary because the vtables are
> not shared across the boundary. This is what causes dlfcn/tststatic2 to
> fail. We also may have to set the IO_accept_foreign_vtables flag for
> additional constructor functions (although _IO_file_init may be sufficient,
> based on what I have seen in GCC).
> A future optimization would change the virtual function calls to compare the
> function pointer in the vtable against an expected function pointer. Only
> if that comparison fails, the vtable pointer is validated. This will allow
> us to inline parts of xsputn into vfprintf, especially if we change the
> various implementations to share more code.
> At this point, I'm mainly interested in comments whether the use of the flag
> is acceptable from a security perspective. I expect that if you can set the
> flag and overwrite vtable pointers, you already have substantial control
> over what the process does. It is also likely that you would able to reset
> the pointer guard variable, disabling the hardening in Kees' patch.
Well, this is certainly better than not having it, and the on/off
switch isn't in the FILE structure, so I would think this should be of
a similar protection level. Though, it'd be nice if a process could
opt-out for its entire lifetime. Right now, any call to _IO_file_init
disables the protection.
(Also, is the call to _IO_new_file_init in _IO_new_popen wrong? Should
that be the internal one instead?)
Chrome OS & Brillo Security