[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:19:16 +0000
From: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>
To: libc-alpha@...rceware.org
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/6] aarch64: avoid mprotect(PROT_BTI|PROT_EXEC) [BZ #26831]
This is v2 of
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-November/119305.html
To enable BTI support, re-mmap executable segments instead of
mprotecting them in case mprotect is seccomp filtered.
I would like linux to change to map the main exe with PROT_BTI when
that is marked as BTI compatible. From the linux side i heard the
following concerns about this:
- it's an ABI change so requires some ABI bump. (this is fine with
me, i think glibc does not care about backward compat as nothing
can reasonably rely on the current behaviour, but if we have a
new bit in auxv or similar then we can save one mprotect call.)
- in case we discover compatibility issues with user binaries it's
better if userspace can easily disable BTI (e.g. removing the
mprotect based on some env var, but if kernel adds PROT_BTI and
mprotect is filtered then we have no reliable way to remove that
from executables. this problem already exists for static linked
exes, although admittedly those are less of a compat concern.)
- ideally PROT_BTI would be added via a new syscall that does not
interfere with PROT_EXEC filtering. (this does not conflict with
the current patches: even with a new syscall we need a fallback.)
- solve it in systemd (e.g. turn off the filter, use better filter):
i would prefer not to have aarch64 (or BTI) specific policy in
user code. and there was no satisfying way to do this portably.
Other concerns about the approach:
- mmap is more expensive than mprotect: in my measurements using
mmap instead of mprotect is 3-8x slower (and after mmap pages
have to be faulted in again), but e.g. the exec time of a program
with 4 deps only increases by < 8% due to the 4 new mmaps. (the
kernel side resource usage may increase too, i didnt look at that.)
- _dl_signal_error is not valid from the _dl_process_gnu_property
hook. The v2 set addresses this problem: i could either propagate
the errors up until they can be handled or solve it in the aarch64
backend by first recording failures and then dealing with them in
_dl_open_check. I choose the latter, but did some refactorings in
_dl_map_object_from_fd that makes the former possible too.
v2:
- [1/6]: New patch that fixes a missed BTI bug found during v2.
- [2-3/6]: New, _dl_map_object_from_fd failure handling improvements,
these are independent of the rest of the series.
- [4/6]: Move the note handling to a different place (after l_phdr
setup, but before fd is closed).
- [5/6]: Rebased.
- [6/6]: First record errors and only report them later. (this fixes
various failure handling issues.)
Szabolcs Nagy (6):
aarch64: Fix missing BTI protection from dependencies [BZ #26926]
elf: lose is closely tied to _dl_map_object_from_fd
elf: Fix failure handling in _dl_map_object_from_fd
elf: Move note processing after l_phdr is updated
elf: Pass the fd to note processing
aarch64: Use mmap to add PROT_BTI instead of mprotect [BZ #26831]
elf/dl-load.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
elf/rtld.c | 4 +-
sysdeps/aarch64/dl-bti.c | 74 ++++++++++++++++++-------
sysdeps/aarch64/dl-prop.h | 14 +++--
sysdeps/aarch64/linkmap.h | 2 +-
sysdeps/generic/dl-prop.h | 6 +-
sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h | 5 +-
sysdeps/x86/dl-prop.h | 6 +-
8 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
