[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOoo55aFHHuLf=zdc4PNvU+Tu9rtpWaMUdRL=JtHGbE3pA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:12:47 -0800
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "dalias@...c.org" <dalias@...c.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"suzuki.poulose@....com" <suzuki.poulose@....com>, "Szabolcs.Nagy@....com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>,
"musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev" <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>, "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"oliver.upton@...ux.dev" <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, "palmer@...belt.com" <palmer@...belt.com>,
"debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.com>, "aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>, "maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>, "fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>, "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"paul.walmsley@...ive.com" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, "ardb@...nel.org" <ardb@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"thiago.bauermann@...aro.org" <thiago.bauermann@...aro.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "sorear@...tmail.com" <sorear@...tmail.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v8 00/38] arm64/gcs: Provide support for GCS in userspace
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:25 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:18 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:22 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
> > <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 14:06 -0500, dalias@...c.org wrote:
> > > > Due to arbitrarily nestable signal frames, no, this does not suffice.
> > > > An interrupted operation using the lock could be arbitrarily delayed,
> > > > even never execute again, making any call to dlopen deadlock.
> > >
> > > Doh! Yep, it is not robust to this. The only thing that could be done
> > > would be a timeout in dlopen(). Which would make the whole thing just
> > > better than nothing.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's fine to turn RDSSP into an actual emulated read of the SSP, or
> > > > at
> > > > least an emulated load of zero so that uninitialized data is not left
> > > > in the target register.
> > >
> > > We can't intercept RDSSP, but it becomes a NOP by default. (disclaimer
> > > x86-only knowledge).
> > >
> > > > If doing the latter, code working with the
> > > > shadow stack just needs to be prepared for the possibility that it
> > > > could be async-disabled, and check the return value.
> > > >
> > > > I have not looked at all the instructions that become #UD but I
> > > > suspect they all have reasonable trivial ways to implement a
> > > > "disabled" version of them that userspace can act upon reasonably.
> > >
> > > This would have to be thought through functionally and performance
> > > wise. I'm not opposed if can come up with a fully fleshed out plan. How
> > > serious are you in pursuing musl support, if we had something like
> > > this?
> > >
> > > HJ, any thoughts on whether glibc would use this as well?
> >
> > Assuming that we are talking about permissive mode, if kernel can
> > suppress UD, we don't need to disable SHSTK. Glibc can enable
> > ARCH_SHSTK_SUPPRESS_UD instead.
>
> Kernel must suppress all possible SHSTK UDs.
If SHSTK is disabled by kernel, not by glibc, there can be 2 issues:
1. Glibc and kernel may be out of sync on SHSTK.
2. When kernel disables SHSTK, glibc may be in the middle of reading
shadow stack in longjmp, searching for a restore token.
> > > It is probably worth mentioning that from the security side (as Mark
> > > mentioned there is always tension in the tradeoffs on these features),
> > > permissive mode is seen by some as something that weakens security too
> > > much. Apps could call dlopen() on a known unsupported DSO before doing
> > > ROP. I don't know if you have any musl users with specific shadow stack
> > > use cases to ask about this.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > H.J.
>
>
>
> --
> H.J.
--
H.J.
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.
