linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for 5.5 1/2] rseq: Fix: Clarify rseq.h UAPI rseq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2129265980.1223.1578342355079.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Jan 2020 15:25:55 -0500 (EST)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Neel Natu <neelnatu@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 5.5 1/2] rseq: Fix: Clarify rseq.h UAPI rseq_cs
 memory reclaim requirements

----- On Jan 6, 2020, at 2:30 PM, Florian Weimer fw@...eb.enyo.de wrote:

> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
> 
>> Just to clarify: should the discussion here prevent the UAPI
>> documentation change from being merged into the Linux kernel ? Our
>> discussion seems to be related to integration of rseq into glibc,
>> rather than the kernel UAPI per se.
> 
> I still think that clearing rseq_cs upon exit from the function that
> contains the sequence is good practice, and the UAPI header should
> mention that.

My understanding is that a UAPI header should document what is strictly
required (here, clearing rseq_cs before unmapping the memory area
containing the rseq_cs structure or the code). Documenting a "best
practice" would AFAIU belong to a man page and not a UAPI header.

I'm adding Michael Kerrisk in CC in case he has an opinion on this
matter.

> For glibc, if I recall correctly, we decided against doing anything in
> dlclose to deal with this issue (remapping new code in an existing
> rseq area) because it would need updating all threads, not just the
> thread calling dlclose.  That's why we're punting this to
> applications and why I think the UAPI header should mention this.

Nothing prevents us from implementing a clever scheme in the future,
e.g. as a new membarrier command, that could be invoked from dlclose()
when it becomes available.

By documenting only the basic requirement in the UAPI header (do not
use-after-free) and not providing a "best practice" (which is not so good
performance-wise), we can then let the man page state the best practices,
and update them as new system call commands are implemented.

Thanks,

Mathieu

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