linux-kernel - Re: vdso feature requests from the Go people

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]

Date:	Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:03:02 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Russ Cox <rsc@...ang.org>,
	Ian Taylor <iant@...ang.org>
Subject: Re: vdso feature requests from the Go people

On 06/13/2014 08:34 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> I'm only aware of two implementations that work like that: glibc and
> musl.  AFAIK neither one even tries to use the vdso when statically
> linked.  IIRC, Bionic doesn't support the vdso at all, and Go has the
> present issue.
> 

I would expect uClibc to behave similarly.  Bionic does, indeed, not
support the vdso, but that is not for the lack of a linker but is really
a shortcoming in Bionic.

> And ELF parsing is a giant mess.  Currently the vdso doesn't use
> DT_GNU_HASH (easy to fix) but no one can safely rely on DT_GNU_HASH
> being there, and DT_GNU_HASH isn't actually easier to parse.

Right... and the vdso is small enough that the performance doesn't
matter.  However, we probably *ought* to publish DT_GNU_HASH data.

>>> 2. Go uses a segmented stack, and the vdso is quite unfriendly for
>>> segmented stack.  If we can get compiler support, is there a
>>> reasonable way that we could advertise the maximum stack usage of each
>>> vdso entry point?
>>
>> I suspect an easier way to do that would just be to define a maximum
>> stack usage for *any* vdso entry point, and then enable the gcc stack
>> depth warning (perhaps even with Werror)... we can do this now.
> 
> I can imagine this causing lots of pain when gcc 4.11 comes out with
> some issue that blows up the stack usage.  Or when akpm compiles on
> Fedora Core 6 using some ancient toolchain that spills every local
> variable three or four times and assigns every possible inline
> function its own non-overlapping stack range.
> 
> My copy of gcc supports -fstack-usage, which seems like an easyish way
> to obtain the information.  I'm not entirely sure whether
> -fstack-usage refers to the whole call tree or just to the specific
> function.

There are issues either way.  However, most vdso code doesn't use much
stack at all, and it seems reasonable to put a (conservative) cap on it
as a matter of policy.

	-hpa


--
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/