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]

Message-ID: <43f97ddb-c8df-27ea-9517-63252ebd3183@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 11:40:16 -0400
From:   Carlos O'Donell <codonell@...hat.com>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:     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>, carlos <carlos@...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 4/5/19 5:16 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Carlos O'Donell:
>> It is valuable that it be a trap, particularly for constant pools because
>> it means that a jump into the constant pool will trap.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand why this matters in this context.  Would you
> please elaborate?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.

My point is only that any accidental jumps, either with off-by-one (like you
fixed in gcc/glibc's signal unwinding most recently), result in a process fault
rather than executing RSEQ_SIG as a valid instruction *and then* continuing
onwards to the handler.

A process fault is achieved either by a trap, or an invalid instruction, or
a privileged insn (like suggested for MIPS in this thread).

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.