From: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>
To: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
Cc: "Kevin Wolf" <kwolf@redhat.com>,
"Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum" <tobin@ibm.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@redhat.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
"Daniele Buono" <dbuono@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add support for SafeStack
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 15:56:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c6ac2d0e-34bf-9927-f2fe-2ef0408dcbfb@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200505133111.GM764268@redhat.com>
On 5/5/20 3:31 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:15:18PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> +Alex & Daniel who keep track on CI stuff.
>>
>> On 4/29/20 9:44 PM, Daniele Buono wrote:
>>> LLVM supports SafeStack instrumentation to protect against stack buffer
>>> overflows, since version 3.7
>>>
>>> From https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SafeStack.html:
>>> "It works by separating the program stack into two distinct regions: the
>>> safe stack and the unsafe stack. The safe stack stores return addresses,
>>> register spills, and local variables that are always accessed in a safe
>>> way, while the unsafe stack stores everything else. This separation
>>> ensures that buffer overflows on the unsafe stack cannot be used to
>>> overwrite anything on the safe stack."
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the use of two stack regions does not cope well with
>>> QEMU's coroutines. The second stack region is not properly set up with
>>> both ucontext and sigaltstack, so multiple coroutines end up sharing the
>>> same memory area for the unsafe stack, causing undefined behaviors at
>>> runtime (and most iochecks to fail).
>>>
>>> This patch series fixes the implementation of the ucontext backend and
>>> make sure that sigaltstack is never used if the compiler is applying
>>> the SafeStack instrumentation. It also adds a configure flag to enable
>>> SafeStack, and enables iotests when SafeStack is used.
>>>
>>> This is an RFC mainly because of the low-level use of the SafeStack
>>> runtime.
>>> When running swapcontext(), we have to manually set the unsafe stack
>>> pointer to the new area allocated for the coroutine. LLVM does not allow
>>> this by using builtin, so we have to use implementation details that may
>>> change in the future.
>>> This patch has been tested briefly ( make check on an x86 system ) with
>>> clang v3.9, v4.0, v5.0, v6.0
>>> Heavier testing, with make check-acceptance has been performed with
>>> clang v7.0
>>
>> I noticed building using SafeStack is slower, and running with it is even
>> sloooower. It makes sense to have this integrated if we use it regularly. Do
>> you have plan for this? Using public CI doesn't seem reasonable.
>
> The runtime behaviour is rather odd, given the docs they provide:
>
> "The performance overhead of the SafeStack instrumentation is
> less than 0.1% on average across a variety of benchmarks
> This is mainly because most small functions do not have any
> variables that require the unsafe stack and, hence, do not
> need unsafe stack frames to be created. The cost of creating
> unsafe stack frames for large functions is amortized by the
> cost of executing the function.
>
> In some cases, SafeStack actually improves the performance"
I'm sorry I was testing this with a single core instead of all of
them... Thanks for looking at the doc.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-05 13:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-29 19:44 [PATCH 0/4] Add support for SafeStack Daniele Buono
2020-04-29 19:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] coroutine: support SafeStack in ucontext backend Daniele Buono
2020-05-21 9:44 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-05-22 15:18 ` Daniele Buono
2020-05-27 10:34 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-04-29 19:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] coroutine: Add check for SafeStack in sigalstack Daniele Buono
2020-05-04 14:56 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2020-05-21 9:49 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-05-27 17:56 ` Daniele Buono
2020-04-29 19:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] configure: add flag to enable SafeStack Daniele Buono
2020-05-21 9:52 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-05-22 15:24 ` Daniele Buono
2020-05-27 11:12 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-05-27 13:48 ` Daniele Buono
2020-04-29 19:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] check-block: Enable iotests with SafeStack Daniele Buono
2020-05-21 9:59 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-05-22 15:35 ` Daniele Buono
2020-05-27 11:13 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-05-04 14:55 ` [PATCH 0/4] Add support for SafeStack Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2020-05-05 13:15 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2020-05-05 13:31 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-05-05 13:56 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [this message]
2020-05-13 14:48 ` Daniele Buono
2020-05-21 10:00 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
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=c6ac2d0e-34bf-9927-f2fe-2ef0408dcbfb@redhat.com \
--to=philmd@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=dbuono@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=tobin@ibm.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).