linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v7)

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, 4 Apr 2019 16:15:53 -0400
From:   Carlos O'Donell <codonell@...hat.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:     carlos <carlos@...hat.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
        Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
        libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and
 thread creation (v7)

On 4/2/19 2:02 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> writes:
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> ----- On Mar 22, 2019, at 4:09 PM, Carlos O'Donell codonell@...hat.com wrote:
> ...
>>
>> [...]
>>>> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/bits/rseq.h
>> [...]
>>>> +/* Signature required before each abort handler code.  */
>>>> +#define RSEQ_SIG 0x53053053
>>>
>>> Why isn't this an opcode specific to power?
>>
>> On powerpc 32/64, the abort is placed in a __rseq_failure executable section:
>>
>> #define RSEQ_ASM_DEFINE_ABORT(label, abort_label)                               \
>>                  ".pushsection __rseq_failure, \"ax\"\n\t"                       \
>>                  ".long " __rseq_str(RSEQ_SIG) "\n\t"                            \
>>                  __rseq_str(label) ":\n\t"                                       \
>>                  "b %l[" __rseq_str(abort_label) "]\n\t"                         \
>>                  ".popsection\n\t"
>>
>> That section only contains snippets of those trampolines. Arguably, it would be
>> good if disassemblers could find valid instructions there. Boqun Feng could perhaps
>> shed some light on this signature choice ? Now would be a good time to decide
>> once and for all whether a valid instruction would be a better choice.
> 
> I'm a bit vague on what we're trying to do here.
> 
> But it seems like you want some sort of "eye catcher" prior to the branch?
> 
> That value is a valid instruction on current CPUs (rlwimi.
> r5,r24,6,1,9), and even if it wasn't it could become one in future.
> 
> If you change it to 0x8053530 that is both a valid instruction and is a
> nop (conditional trap immediate but with no conditions set).

The s390 IBM team needs to respond to this and I want to make sure they ACK
the NOP being used here because it impacts them directly.

I'd like to see Martin's opinion on this.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.