[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <64245dca-3c6e-3918-701c-dcf3f8e00783@bitwagon.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:15:50 -0800
From: John Reiser <jreiser@...wagon.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add comments to i386 assembly source
On 01/01/2018 13:49 UTC, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 02:57:02PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>> There's a bug. clone() is a user-level function that can be used
>> independently of the musl internal implementation of threads.
>> Thus when clone() in musl/src/linux/clone.c calls
>> return __syscall_ret(__clone(func, stack, flags, arg, ptid, tls, ctid));
>> then the i386 implementation of __clone has no guarantee about
>> the value in %gs, and it is a bug to assume that (%gs >> 3)
>> fits in 8 bits.
>
> The ABI is that at function call or any time a signal could be
> received, %gs must always be a valid segment register value reflecting
> the current thread's thread pointer. If this is violated, the program
> has undefined behavior.
More than one segment descriptor can designate the same subset
of the linear address space. Duplicate the segment descriptor
to a target selector that is >= 256, and load %gs with the
duplicate selector before calling clone().
>
>> The code in musl/src/thread/i386/clone.s wastes up to 12 bytes
>> when aligning the new stack, by aligning before [pre-]allocating
>> space for the one argument to the thread function.
>
> I suspect the initial value happens to be aligned anyway in which case
> reserving 16 bytes and aligning to 16 is the same as reserving 4 and
> aligning to 16. If you think it's not, I don't mind changing if you
> can do careful testing to make sure it doesn't introduce any bugs.
This is another bug! Consider the valid code:
void **lo_stack = malloc(5 * sizeof(void *));
/* malloc() guarantees 16-byte alignment of lo_stack */
clone(func, &lo_stack[5], ...);
then __clone() does:
and $-16,%ecx /* &lo_stack[4] */
sub $ 16,%ecx /* &lo_stack[0] */
...
mov %ecx,%esp /* new thread: implicit action of ___NR_clone system call */
call *%eax /* OUT-OF-BOUNDS: lo_stack[-1] = return address */
Thus, starting the thread function has scribbled outside the allocated area,
even though the lo_stack[] array can accommodate the call by the code I showed:
lea -NBPW(arg2),%ecx /* &lo_stack[4] */
and $-16,%ecx /* still &lo_stack[4] */
...
mov %ecx,%esp /* new thread: implicit action of __NR_clone system call */
call *%eax /* lo_stack[3] = return address */
The danger is not "new bugs", but rather revealing latent bugs that were
obscured by the less-strict old code. For instance, if the thread
function actually has two formal parameters, or if it uses va_arg()
to reference beyond the first actual argument, then running the optimal
code is more likely to notice.
--
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.
