linux-kernel - Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?

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:   Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:33:57 +0000
From:   Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
        "libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>
Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:40:44PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Dave Martin:
> 
> > Fair points, though this is rather what I meant by "sane essentials".
> > Because there are strict limits on what can be done in the vDSO, it may
> > be more bloat-resistant and more conservatively maintained.
> >
> > This might provide a way to push some dumb compatibility kludge code
> > that receives little ongoing maintenance outside the privilege wall,
> > whereas it has to sit in the kernel proper today.
> >
> > In theory we could opt to advertise new syscalls only via vDSO entry
> > points, and not maintain __NR_xxx values for them (which may or may
> > not upset ptrace users.)  Anyway, I digress...
> 
> Is the vDSO available across all architectures?  (I don't think we use
> it on all architectures in glibc.)

It's probably not available on all arches.

> If not, a vDSO-based approach would merely lead to even more variance
> between architectures, which can't be a good thing.

That's a fair concern.

Channeling syscalls through the vDSO could allow for a uniform syscall
interface at the ELF linkage level, but only those arches that have a
vDSO.  There may be other issues too.

Also, I don't say that we should definitely do this, just that it's
a possibility.

Cheers
---Dave