All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	libc-alpha@sourceware.org, systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] BTI interaction between seccomp filters in systemd and glibc mprotect calls, causing service failures
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:18:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201022071812.GA324655@gardel-login> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8584c14f-5c28-9d70-c054-7c78127d84ea@arm.com>

On Mi, 21.10.20 22:44, Jeremy Linton (jeremy.linton@arm.com) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There is a problem with glibc+systemd on BTI enabled systems. Systemd
> has a service flag "MemoryDenyWriteExecute" which uses seccomp to deny
> PROT_EXEC changes. Glibc enables BTI only on segments which are marked as
> being BTI compatible by calling mprotect PROT_EXEC|PROT_BTI. That call is
> caught by the seccomp filter, resulting in service failures.
>
> So, at the moment one has to pick either denying PROT_EXEC changes, or BTI.
> This is obviously not desirable.
>
> Various changes have been suggested, replacing the mprotect with mmap calls
> having PROT_BTI set on the original mapping, re-mmapping the segments,
> implying PROT_EXEC on mprotect PROT_BTI calls when VM_EXEC is already set,
> and various modification to seccomp to allow particular mprotect cases to
> bypass the filters. In each case there seems to be an undesirable attribute
> to the solution.
>
> So, whats the best solution?

Did you see Topi's comments on the systemd issue?

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/17368#issuecomment-710485532

I think I agree with this: it's a bit weird to alter the bits after
the fact. Can't glibc set up everything right from the begining? That
would keep both concepts working.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] BTI interaction between seccomp filters in systemd and glibc mprotect calls, causing service failures
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:18:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201022071812.GA324655@gardel-login> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8584c14f-5c28-9d70-c054-7c78127d84ea@arm.com>

On Mi, 21.10.20 22:44, Jeremy Linton (jeremy.linton@arm.com) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There is a problem with glibc+systemd on BTI enabled systems. Systemd
> has a service flag "MemoryDenyWriteExecute" which uses seccomp to deny
> PROT_EXEC changes. Glibc enables BTI only on segments which are marked as
> being BTI compatible by calling mprotect PROT_EXEC|PROT_BTI. That call is
> caught by the seccomp filter, resulting in service failures.
>
> So, at the moment one has to pick either denying PROT_EXEC changes, or BTI.
> This is obviously not desirable.
>
> Various changes have been suggested, replacing the mprotect with mmap calls
> having PROT_BTI set on the original mapping, re-mmapping the segments,
> implying PROT_EXEC on mprotect PROT_BTI calls when VM_EXEC is already set,
> and various modification to seccomp to allow particular mprotect cases to
> bypass the filters. In each case there seems to be an undesirable attribute
> to the solution.
>
> So, whats the best solution?

Did you see Topi's comments on the systemd issue?

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/17368#issuecomment-710485532

I think I agree with this: it's a bit weird to alter the bits after
the fact. Can't glibc set up everything right from the begining? That
would keep both concepts working.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

       reply	other threads:[~2020-10-22  7:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <8584c14f-5c28-9d70-c054-7c78127d84ea@arm.com>
2020-10-22  7:18 ` Lennart Poettering [this message]
2020-10-22  7:18   ` [systemd-devel] BTI interaction between seccomp filters in systemd and glibc mprotect calls, causing service failures Lennart Poettering
2020-10-22  7:54   ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-22  7:54     ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-22  8:17     ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22  8:17       ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22  8:25       ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-22  8:25         ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-22  8:29       ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-22  8:29         ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-22  8:38         ` Lennart Poettering
2020-10-22  8:38           ` Lennart Poettering
2020-10-22  9:31           ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-22  9:31             ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-22 10:12             ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 10:12               ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 10:27               ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-22 10:27                 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-23  6:13             ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-23  6:13               ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-23  9:04               ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-23  9:04                 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-22 10:03         ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 10:03           ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22  8:05   ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-22  8:05     ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-22  8:31     ` Lennart Poettering
2020-10-22  8:31       ` Lennart Poettering
     [not found] ` <20201022075447.GO3819@arm.com>
2020-10-22 10:39   ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 10:39     ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 20:02     ` Kees Cook
2020-10-22 20:02       ` Kees Cook
2020-10-22 20:02       ` Kees Cook
2020-10-22 22:24       ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 22:24         ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 22:24         ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-23 17:52         ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2020-10-23 17:52           ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2020-10-23 17:52           ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2020-10-24 11:34           ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-24 11:34             ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-24 11:34             ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-24 14:12             ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2020-10-24 14:12               ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2020-10-24 14:12               ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2020-10-25 13:42               ` Jordan Glover
2020-10-25 13:42                 ` Jordan Glover
2020-10-25 13:42                 ` Jordan Glover
2020-10-23  9:02       ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-23  9:02         ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-23  9:02         ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-24 11:01         ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-24 11:01           ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-24 11:01           ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 14:52           ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-26 14:52             ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-26 14:52             ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-26 15:56             ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 15:56               ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 15:56               ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 16:51               ` Mark Brown
2020-10-26 16:51                 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-26 16:51                 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-26 16:31             ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 16:31               ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 16:31               ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 16:24 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 16:24   ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 16:39   ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 16:39     ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 16:45   ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-26 16:45     ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-27 14:22     ` Dave Martin
2020-10-27 14:22       ` Dave Martin
2020-10-27 14:41       ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-27 14:41         ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-26 16:57   ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-26 16:57     ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-26 17:52     ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 17:52       ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 22:39       ` Jeremy Linton
2020-10-26 22:39         ` Jeremy Linton
2020-10-27 14:15         ` Dave Martin
2020-10-27 14:15           ` Dave Martin
2020-10-29 11:02           ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-29 11:02             ` Catalin Marinas
2020-11-04 12:18             ` Dave Martin
2020-11-04 12:18               ` Dave Martin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20201022071812.GA324655@gardel-login \
    --to=mzxreary@0pointer.de \
    --cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=dave.martin@arm.com \
    --cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.