Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Perhaps we should stop people from being able to write to kernel memory in the first place, no?
Attacking hardened Linux systems with kernel JIT spraying
Posted Nov 18, 2012 20:24 UTC (Sun) by deepfire (subscriber, #26138)
Do you argue against mechanisms to prevent exploitation until we do?
On what grounds?
Posted Nov 19, 2012 11:37 UTC (Mon) by cyanit (guest, #86671)
Switch to an augmented version of the C language with annotations to help the theorem prover or to another existing language if it turns out to be necessary to be able to prove correctness.
Posted Nov 19, 2012 13:24 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433)
Good luck with ACHIEVING that!
It's a nice idea, but I guess the proof would take longer to run than the heat death of the universe, that is, if the proof itself doesn't contain bugs ...
The problem, as you seem to have missed, is that the kernel needs to be able to write to kernel memory ...
Posted Nov 19, 2012 13:41 UTC (Mon) by cyanit (guest, #86671)
So, that's the solution if everything else fails.
Without garbage collection, you can still prove (with help from the programmer if needed) that everything is either reference counted with no cycles, pointed to by a single pointer with lifetime tied to the contained structure, or otherwise provide a proof that it is correctly handled.
Without full type safety, you can still prove, for instance, that memcpy only writes the (dst, dst + size) and that since dst points to an array of size, it is safe, and so on for more complex stuff.
The real reason is that apparently nobody cares enough to do the work.
Annotating the kernel to prevent exploits
Posted Nov 19, 2012 14:39 UTC (Mon) by ebiederm (subscriber, #35028)
The techniques and tools are not yet fully mature. So I would say that is a little more than lack of people caring that has not seen this happen. Especially when you are talking such a large code base.
I was playing with using frama-c which reportedly is one of the better frame works for connecting C code and a prover and it could not handle the C99 of my toy test program. Getting a tool like that to run successfully on the kernel source base with no annotations looks to be a significant undertaking.
Not that this problem is unique to tools like frama-c. Even the clang front end to llvm (an actual production c compiler) has has trouble building the linux kernel.
Posted Nov 19, 2012 22:39 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
The seL4 is a microkernel, of which some 7500 lines of C code have been verified rigurously (assuming the compiler and the underlying machine are correct). That is many, many orders of magnitude away from even the most spartan Linux configuration.
state of the art in formal proofs of kernels
Posted Nov 20, 2012 4:26 UTC (Tue) by pjm (subscriber, #2080)
Even then, so far they only claim to have proven [subject to questionable assumptions such as the compiler conforming to the formalization that they've written themselves] that their C implementation has the same behaviour (and hence same set of bugs) as their implementation in a higher-level language. They haven't claimed to have proven anything (else) about the behaviour of that higher-level-language implementation. So for example, even if the seL4 microkernel contained a JIT compiler, they wouldn't have proven anything about the output of that compiler (to which the kernel presumably passes control while in kernel mode).
OTOH, that program equivalence would certainly reduce the opportunities for exploits (e.g. by ruling out any buffer overflows that don't occur in the higher-level language), and at least it's a bit easier to prove properties of code in a higher-level language than a lower-level one. Mathematical proofs increase confidence, but there's always a gap between a mathematical model and the real world.
Posted Nov 20, 2012 11:45 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
The next frontier is to prove that hardware itself is correct :)
Posted Nov 20, 2012 13:33 UTC (Tue) by ebiederm (subscriber, #35028)
Hardware design developed formal method for their logic ALUs and FPUs a long time ago. Although that clearly has it's limits. Especially timing.
The next frontier is for program proofs to stop being news and instead partial program proofs increasing program reliability to the point where any program updates except for features become news.
How we go from proofs of concept to useful proof tools is a question I don't yet see answers to.
Posted Nov 20, 2012 19:14 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
Given that people don't even bother to define what acceptable input is, I don't expect this to ever happen.
Not to mention that this would require anticipating all possible internal state, another thing that is not going to happen.
And then you need to have someone think through what should happen in all these combinations of cases, and not have any logic errors in what the 'proofs' are trying to show.
> Hardware design developed formal method for their logic ALUs and FPUs a long time ago. Although that clearly has it's limits. Especially timing.
And when Timing issues dominate, the 'correctness' generated by such proofs is pretty meaningless.
Math is not reality, they sometimes have a resemblance to each other, but that's just a happy coincidence.
Posted Nov 19, 2012 16:00 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
Well, if you wrote the kernel in a type-safe garbage-collected language (e.g. Java), then the static proof would be trivial since it is by construction impossible to violate the language invariants (assuming the VM and low-level support code is correct).
Unfortunately this small addition at the end makes the whole thing useless: simple interpreter mode for languages like Java are too slow and thus "VM and low-level support code" is typically comparable in complexity to OS kernel (in some sense it is an OS kernel).
The real reason is that apparently nobody cares enough to do the work.
No. The real reason is that it takes time and does not pay.
Posted Nov 19, 2012 16:40 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Posted Nov 20, 2012 3:07 UTC (Tue) by liam (subscriber, #84133)
Posted Nov 20, 2012 19:15 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
I suppose that since there's a high chance of it happening, the question boils down to: "What wins when the decision is between ABI compatibility and provably secure?"
Posted Nov 19, 2012 17:22 UTC (Mon) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
I remember that back at the university proving that even a very simple concurrent program is correct took 30-40 minutes. And that model did not have shared memory or integer overflows...
Posted Nov 20, 2012 8:55 UTC (Tue) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
By all means, continue burbling on about the magical, deadlock-free, realtime, garbage collected in kernel space, 1000 miles-per-gallon programming language, but at least try to pretend that you read the article and/or recent news.
It's also funny that you're advocating using a (presumably JITed) garbage collected programming language in the kernel, and this vulnerability exploits the BPF JIT.
Being unfairly fair
Posted Nov 20, 2012 11:56 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091)
To be even fairer, to the point of unfairness, Java may have had vulnerabilities e.g. in executing protected code; but no buffer overflows. In C, every time a pointer is not checked for null before jumping, or an array index is not checked to be within bounds, there is an opportunity for a security vulnerability. I would trade 1000s of vulnerabilities for a handful any time, if it was even feasible to run a kernel in a VM.
In real life a kernel cannot run in a VM because it would need a kernel to run the VM -- or the VM would become the kernel. This is the way of the microkernel, which is slow. Embedding a VM inside another VM has no advantages and only slows things down even more.
On the other hand there is no reason why a kernel cannot be written in an object-oriented, reference-counted language. I have been thinking for a long time that it would be a worthwhile project, but for some reason have not found the time to do it in my spare time. Perhaps Golang would be a worthwhile instrument for the task.
a kernel cannot run in a VM
Posted Nov 20, 2012 21:46 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433)
Sorry to say it, but cyanit doesn't seem to understand the difference between a kernel and a VM.
A VM provides a *virtual* computer so that the programs don't need to give a fig what the real hardware is.
A kernel must interface directly with the hardware and cannot afford to ignore any figs.
Running a kernel in a VM is likely to vanish in a puff of smoke as it gets lost in a mobius loop!
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds