This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Alternative libio vtable hardening approach
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Kees Cook <keescook at chromium dot org>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Yunlian Jiang <yunlian at google dot com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:56:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: Alternative libio vtable hardening approach
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <b34105f2-adcb-9347-73c0-43079729c418 at redhat dot com> <CAGXu5jKvxAXSpOEbYjP8S4+S7V6HrrgH+cTDAZ1E76Vzhxy9eg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 05/31/2016 09:23 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
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.
I don't quite see how to do this. The machine code sequence to set the
flag has to be in the process image to enable backwards compatibility
when needed. It doesn't really matter if this code is in an IFUNC
handler or in a library subroutine. And even if we have some
precondition check (say, the IFUNC handler checks that we are in ld.so
and relocation processing is running), execution could start after it.
We could have another flag, this time in read-only memory, which is some
sort of tunable which can be tweaked by the system administrator.
(Maybe we could even query the SELinux policy engine to get the flag.)
The fallback path could check this flag as well.
In general, I want to avoid policy-based solutions because I'm told that
in too many relevant scenarios, only the âanything goesâ policy counts.
Do you think it's import to address this from the start, or can this
wait until we have a better story for tunables?
(Also, is the call to _IO_new_file_init in _IO_new_popen wrong? Should
that be the internal one instead?)
Yes, these parts aren't completely done yet.
I also need to do something about static linking. The increase in
executable size appears to be rather moderate, but there are
linknamespace issues. I'll try to use weak function symbols for some of
the methods (particularly the obstack ones), maybe this will help on