From: Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@gmail.com>
To: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
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>,
Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>,
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 13:03:59 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55b44a39-ab19-363e-3703-9bf4e7d75f68@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201022082912.GQ3819@arm.com>
On 22.10.2020 11.29, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> The 10/22/2020 11:17, Topi Miettinen via Libc-alpha wrote:
>> On 22.10.2020 10.54, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Lennart Poettering:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The dynamic loader has to process the LOAD segments to get to the ELF
>>> note that says to enable BTI. Maybe we could do a first pass and load
>>> only the segments that cover notes. But that requires lots of changes
>>> to generic code in the loader.
>>
>> What if the loader always enabled BTI for PROT_EXEC pages, but then when
>> discovering that this was a mistake, mprotect() the pages without BTI? Then
>> both BTI and MDWX would work and the penalty of not getting MDWX would fall
>> to non-BTI programs. What's the expected proportion of BTI enabled code vs.
>> disabled in the future, is it perhaps expected that a distro would enable
>> the flag globally so eventually only a few legacy programs might be
>> unprotected?
>
> i thought mprotect(PROT_EXEC) would get filtered
> with or without bti, is that not the case?
It would be filtered, but the idea is that with modern binaries this
would not happen since the pages would be mapped with mmap(,, PROT_EXEC
| PROT_BTI,,) which is OK for purposes MDWX. The loader would have to
use mprotect(PROT_EXEC) to get rid of PROT_BTI only for the legacy binaries.
-Topi
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-22 10:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <8584c14f-5c28-9d70-c054-7c78127d84ea@arm.com>
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 8:17 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 8:25 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-22 8:29 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-22 8:38 ` Lennart Poettering
2020-10-22 9:31 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-22 10:12 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 10:27 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-23 6:13 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-23 9:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-22 10:03 ` Topi Miettinen [this message]
2020-10-22 8:05 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-22 8:31 ` Lennart Poettering
[not found] ` <20201022075447.GO3819@arm.com>
2020-10-22 10:39 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 20:02 ` Kees Cook
2020-10-22 22:24 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-23 17:52 ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2020-10-24 11:34 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-24 14:12 ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2020-10-25 13:42 ` Jordan Glover
2020-10-23 9:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-24 11:01 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 14:52 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-26 15:56 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 16:51 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-26 16:31 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 16:24 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 16:39 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 16:45 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-27 14:22 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-27 14:41 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-26 16:57 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-26 17:52 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 22:39 ` Jeremy Linton
2020-10-27 14:15 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-29 11:02 ` Catalin Marinas
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=55b44a39-ab19-363e-3703-9bf4e7d75f68@gmail.com \
--to=toiwoton@gmail.com \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.martin@arm.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.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=mzxreary@0pointer.de \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).