Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:34:38 +0000
From: Mark Brown <>
To: Szabolcs Nagy <>
Cc:, Jeremy Linton <>,
	Catalin Marinas <>,
	Mark Rutland <>, Will Deacon <>,
	Florian Weimer <>,
	Kees Cook <>,
	Salvatore Mesoraca <>,
	Lennart Poettering <>,
	Topi Miettinen <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] aarch64: avoid mprotect(PROT_BTI|PROT_EXEC) [BZ

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:25:37AM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:

> Re-mmap executable segments instead of mprotecting them in
> case mprotect is seccomp filtered.

> For the kernel mapped main executable we don't have the fd
> for re-mmap so linux needs to be updated to add BTI. (In the
> presence of seccomp filters for mprotect(PROT_EXEC) the libc
> cannot change BTI protection at runtime based on user space
> policy so it is better if the kernel maps BTI compatible
> binaries with PROT_BTI by default.)

Given that there were still some ongoing discussions on a more robust
kernel interface here and there seem to be a few concerns with this
series should we perhaps just take a step back and disable this seccomp
filter in systemd on arm64, at least for the time being?  That seems
safer than rolling out things that set ABI quickly, a big part of the
reason we went with having the dynamic linker enable PROT_BTI in the
first place was to give us more flexibility to handle any unforseen
consequences of enabling BTI that we run into.  We are going to have
similar issues with other features like MTE so we need to make sure that
whatever we're doing works with them too.

Also updated to Will's current e-mail address - Will, do you have
thoughts on what we should do here?

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)

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.