| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Performance impact?Performance impact?Posted Jul 20, 2005 7:49 UTC (Wed) by farnz (guest, #17727)Parent article: Kernel Summit 2005: The ExecShield patches Just out of interest, has anyone run numbers on the cost of the full set of ExecShield patches? Non-executable data is obviously free on the right hardware and hiding information previously exported doesn't cost, but checking for things like double free, or stack overruns does take some CPU time.
(Log in to post comments)
Performance impact? Posted Jul 22, 2005 12:27 UTC (Fri) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] there's no performance impact from the double-free checks.
you are right about exec-shield being cheap on newest hardware - but it's more than reasonable even on 'legacy' hardware where we apply the 'dynamic segment limit' trick to approximate NX protection. Maintaining the segment limit has some cost but it's not measurable.
What is measurable is overhead on systems that dont have NX but have fast syscall support: there we have to turn off fast syscalls because the fast syscall hardware does not follow segment limits accurately and securely. Fast syscalls are a new feature in the 2.6 kernel which can cut ~0.5 usecs off the syscall entry+exit cost. On CPUs that have neither fast syscalls nor NX (old hardware), or CPUs that have both (new systems), there's no such cost. Also, the difference between fast syscalls and int80 syscalls is more marked on new hardware - which has NX. So while exec-shield might cause a NX-less P3 to not use fast syscalls, the cost of that is not the same as if the latest P4 didnt have fast syscalls.
so in general, the performance overhead of exec-shield is not an issue. Even if it had considerable overhead (which it doesnt), i'd use it personally, considering the tough (and important) problem it tries to solve: to give a fair degree of transparent non-exec protection on CPUs that dont actually have such support in hardware. (i.e. dont have an "exec/dont-exec" bit in their pagetable format.)
Exec-shield is always on in FC1, FC2, FC3, FC4, RHEL3 and RHEL4.
Performance impact? Posted Aug 9, 2006 2:07 UTC (Wed) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link] "you are right about exec-shield being cheap on newest hardware - but it's more than reasonable even on 'legacy' hardware where we apply the 'dynamic segment limit' trick to approximate NX protection. Maintaining the segment limit has some cost but it's not measurable."
[Stack +RW]
Do you guys still try to map libraries in below the 16MB limit to try to create NULL bytes in the addresses? That was a valiant effort but remember we still consider stuff like buffer overflows exploitable on x86-64 (where we have 48 bits VMA and 64 bit pointers, so they all contain 2 NULL bytes).
The one thing it does buy you is that you can try to map libraries low and move the segment limit down to the heap; keep NX anonymous mappings high so you don't get +X anonmaps as well. Then your image looks as follows:
[Stack +RW]
Unfortunately libraries are pretty set with the following (because statically linked data is accessed relative to the code segment and can't be separately reloaded, or something like that; I do not fully understand it yet):
[Library +RX]
So you can't truly make non-executable library data. PaX overloads the supervisor bit for this; the code segment limit works above the highest executable address, and below that the supervisor bit overloading takes effect.
PaX supplies 16 bits of library randomization, whereas ExecShield uses only 8. ES moves libs around in 1MB of VMA so things fit under the first 16MB; you could very well manage to use supervisor-bit overloading only on library data, CSLT working for the heap and anonmaps. PaX moves them in the first 256M so the original VMA layout is kept; everything below the stack gets the supervisor bit overloading.
I actually measured the overhead of PaX's segment limit/SBO hybrid technique at just a bit lower than the SEGMEXEC method of splitting the address space in half; except the Pentium 4 has a flaw that makes the supervisor bit overloading part EXTREMELY slow. Pentium 3 or lower or any AMD chip works just fine.
|
|
||||||||||||