[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201130155655.GA16045@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:56:56 +0000
From: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>
To: libc-alpha@...rceware.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] aarch64: avoid mprotect(PROT_BTI|PROT_EXEC) [BZ
#26831]
The 11/27/2020 13:19, Szabolcs Nagy via Libc-alpha wrote:
> 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.)
i tested glibc build time with mprotect vs mmap
which should be exec heavy.
the real time overhead was < 0.2% on a particular
4 core system with linux 5.3 ubuntu kernel, which
i consider to be small.
(used PROT_EXEC without PROT_BTI for the measurement).
> - _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.
