linux-kernel - Re: Change in functionality of futex() system call.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4DEFA18A.2000808@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:21:30 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To:	David Oliver <david@...advisors.com>
CC:	Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...advisors.com>,
	Zachary Vonler <zvonler@...advisors.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Change in functionality of futex() system call.



On 06/08/2011 08:20 AM, David Oliver wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 15:19, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, David Oliver <david@...advisors.com> wrote:
>>>> I have software which currently uses shared files for a one way
>>>> transfer of information, which is modeled precisely by the futex (as
>>>> contrasted to the mutex) model. In this case, the number of receivers
>>>> is undetermined, so the number of wakeups is set to maxint.
>>>>
>>>> The receivers are minimally trusted: they have read access to the
>>>> files, so they cannot accidentally affect other processes use of the
>>>> data. Requiring my files to be writeable by all clients would require
>>>> a serious increase in the amount of software needing to be trusted.
>>>
>>> What's wrong with adding a FUTEX_WAIT_NOCONSUME flag then?  Your
>>> program can use it to get exactly the semantics it wants and my
>>> program can use it or not depending on which semantics it wants.
>>>
>>> Then we can document in the man page that, on kernels newer than
>>> whichever version introduced the regression, read-only mappings of a
>>> file cannot be used to interfere with futexes on that file.
>>
>> Hmm, I would actually call it "FUTEX_POLL", since that better reflects the
>> operation being performed.
>>
>> Certainly you would want to avoid allowing FUTEX_POLL to "steal"
>> limited wakeups from FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE or whatever, so you
>> also need a new "FUTEX_NOTIFY".  Alternatively I guess you could just
>> special-case the FUTEX_WAKE && wakeups == INTMAX combination to
>> also notify FUTEX_POLL processes.
>>
>> I almost wonder if long-term there might possibly be some decent way
>> to integrate this with eventfds to allow a thread to wait for notifications from
>> any number of memory addresses as well as other event sources.  This
>> would be a similar extension to signalfd, only for futexes.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kyle Moffett
>>
> 
> Having a new call is inelegant from a futex(2) user perspective, as
> the need for a change is due to the kernel implementation and/or mutex
> requirements. The futex() system call, as documented, is ideal for a
> single producer to signal multiple receivers of state updates.
> 
> If it is truly necessary to add new variants to futex() to protect
> applications that allow untrusted applications read access to their
> mutexes, I would avoid both the names suggested, as consumption of
> wakeups is not an obvious issue to users, and POLL suggests waiting
> for multiple entities as in poll(2) (which is not provided), or
> returning immediately (which is orthogonally provided by the timeout
> parameter). What is being provided from the user point of view is a
> FUTEX_WAIT per the man page, which doesn't require write access. How
> about FUTEX_WAIT_RDONLY?
> 
> Alternatively, use the current call and document that when process
> performing a FUTEX_WAIT on read-only memory are woken, they do not
> count towards the number reported as being woken.
> 
> Best, IMHO, would be to document that providing read access to mutexes
> to untrusted software is unsafe behavior, and restore read only access
> to readers of futexes.

I'm inclined to agree with this approach.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/