linux-kernel - Re: VDSO unmap and remap support for additional architectures

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, 29 Apr 2016 09:22:11 -0400
From:	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, criu@...nvz.org,
	Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, dsafonov@...tuozzo.com
Subject: Re: VDSO unmap and remap support for additional architectures

Hi Andy,

On 04/28/2016 02:53 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 04/28/2016 08:18 AM, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> Please take a look at the following prototype of sharing the PowerPC
>> VDSO unmap and remap code with other architectures. I've only hooked
>> up arm64 to begin with. If folks think this is a reasonable approach I
>> can work on 32 bit ARM as well. Not hearing back from an earlier
>> request for guidance [1], I simply dove in and started hacking.
>> Laurent's test case [2][3] is a compelling illustration of whether VDSO
>> remap works or not on a given architecture.
> 
> I think there's a much nicer way:
> 
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461584223-9418-1-git-send-email-dsafonov@virtuozzo.com
> 
> Could arm64 and ppc use this approach?  These arch_xyz hooks are gross.

Thanks for the pointer. Any thoughts on how to keep essentially
identical definitions of vdso_mremap from proliferating into every
architecture and variant?

> Also, at some point, possibly quite soon, x86 will want a way for
> user code to ask the kernel to map a specific vdso variant at a specific
> address. Could we perhaps add a new pair of syscalls:
> 
> struct vdso_info {
>     unsigned long space_needed_before;
>     unsigned long space_needed_after;
>     unsigned long alignment;
> };
> 
> long vdso_get_info(unsigned int vdso_type, struct vdso_info *info);
> 
> long vdso_remap(unsigned int vdso_type, unsigned long addr, unsigned int flags);
> 
> #define VDSO_X86_I386 0
> #define VDSO_X86_64 1
> #define VDSO_X86_X32 2
> // etc.
> 
> vdso_remap will map the vdso of the chosen type such at
> AT_SYSINFO_EHDR lines up with addr. It will use up to
> space_needed_before bytes before that address and space_needed_after
> after than address. It will also unmap the old vdso (or maybe only do
> that if some flag is set).
> 
> On x86, mremap is *not* sufficient for everything that's needed,
> because some programs will need to change the vdso type.

I don't I understand. Why can't people just exec() the ELF type that
corresponds to the VDSO they want?

Thanks,
Cov

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project