linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v8)

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: <1055153722.1072.1555602067220.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:41:07 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>
Cc:     Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>, nd <nd@....com>,
        carlos <carlos@...hat.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.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>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.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 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup
 and thread creation (v8)

----- On Apr 18, 2019, at 11:33 AM, Szabolcs Nagy Szabolcs.Nagy@....com wrote:

> On 18/04/2019 14:17, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Apr 17, 2019, at 3:56 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>> mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com wrote:
>>> ----- On Apr 17, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Joseph Myers joseph@...esourcery.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> +/* RSEQ_SIG is a signature required before each abort handler code.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +   It is a 32-bit value that maps to actual architecture code compiled
>>>>>> +   into applications and libraries. It needs to be defined for each
>>>>>> +   architecture. When choosing this value, it needs to be taken into
>>>>>> +   account that generating invalid instructions may have ill effects on
>>>>>> +   tools like objdump, and may also have impact on the CPU speculative
>>>>>> +   execution efficiency in some cases.  */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define RSEQ_SIG 0xd428bc00	/* BRK #0x45E0.  */
>>>>>
>>>>> After further investigation, we should probably do the following
>>>>> to handle compiling with -mbig-endian on aarch64, which generates
>>>>> binaries with mixed code vs data endianness (little endian code,
>>>>> big endian data):
>>>>
>>>> First, the comment on RSEQ_SIG should specify whether it is to be
>>>> interpreted in the code or the data endianness.
>>>
>>> Right. The signature passed as argument to the rseq registration
>>> system call needs to be in data endianness (currently exposed kernel
>>> ABI).
>>>
>>> Ideally for userspace, we want to define a signature in code endianness
>>> that happens to nicely match specific code patterns.
> ...
>> For aarch64, I think we can simply do:
>> 
>> /*
>>  * aarch64 -mbig-endian generates mixed endianness code vs data:
>>  * little-endian code and big-endian data. Ensure the RSEQ_SIG signature
>>  * matches code endianness.
>>  */
>> #define RSEQ_SIG_CODE   0xd428bc00      /* BRK #0x45E0.  */
>> 
>> #ifdef __ARM_BIG_ENDIAN
>> #define RSEQ_SIG_DATA   0x00bc28d4      /* BRK #0x45E0.  */
>> #else
>> #define RSEQ_SIG_DATA   RSEQ_SIG_CODE
>> #endif
>> 
>> #define RSEQ_SIG        RSEQ_SIG_DATA
>> 
>> Feedback is most welcome,
> 
> so the RSEQ_SIG value is supposed to be used with .word
> in asm instead of .inst?

We want a .inst so it translates into a valid trap instruction.
It's better to trap in case program execution reaches this
by mistake (makes debugging easier).

> 
> i don't think we use __ARM_* in public headers currently,
> but hopefully aarch64_be compilers implement it.

Can I use #if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__  then ?

> 
> otherwise this looks ok to me.
> 
> (i think a rare palindrome instruction would work too, e.g.
> 0a5f5f0a 	and	w10, w24, wzr, lsr #23 // shifted 0
> 2a5f5f2a 	orr	w10, w25, wzr, lsr #23
> eb9f9feb 	negs	x11, xzr, asr #39
> c83f3fc8 	stxp	wzr, x8, x15, [x30]  // store to LR ignoring success
> d9ffffd9 	stz2g	x25, [x30, #-16]!    // v8.5 tag+zero 2 granules around LR
> etc. it does not need to be a guaranteed trap)

Unfortunately it's not a trap :/

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com