[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bl2vnj78.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 09:30:03 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: add noexcept to all functions please
* Markus Wichmann:
> On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 07:20:21PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I believe the musl cancellation implementation does not use DWARF
>> unwinding. I do not know if it cancellation handlers have the same
>> hardening gap as glibc's with setjmp-based unwinding.
> I presume you mean the cancel cleanup handling. In that case, musl uses
> a simple linked list, with nodes allocated on stack. No gaps of any
> kind.
The __f function pointer is stored in the node on the stack, along with
the __x argument that is passed by _pthread_cleanup_pop. This looks
like a convenient on-stack gadget for exploitation purposes. In musl,
the invocation is in the library itself, so there isn't much choice
there. In glibc, with -fno-exceptions, we try to avoid this by inlining
the non-cancellation path at the pthread_cleanup_pop point. But even if
the function pointer is constant, current GCC is no longer able to
produce a direct call. But with -fexceptions, we do get a direct call.
Thanks,
Florian
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.
