linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH glibc 4/8] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v15)

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: <87sgi4gqhf.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date:   Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:16:12 +0100
From:   Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>, carlos <carlos@...hat.com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH glibc 4/8] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v15)

* Mathieu Desnoyers:

>> You also need to add an assert that the compiler supports
>> __attribute__ ((aligned)) because ignoring it produces an
>> ABI-incompatible header.
>
> Are you aware of some helper macro I should use to do this, or
> is it done elsewhere in glibc ?

I don't think we have any such GCC-only types yet.  max_align_t is
provided by GCC itself.

>> The struct rseq/struct rseq_cs definitions
>> are broken, they should not try to change the alignment.
>
> AFAIU, this means we should ideally not have used __attribute__((aligned))
> in the uapi headers in the first place. Why is it broken ?

Compilers which are not sufficiently GCC-compatible define
__attribute__(X) as the empty expansion, so you silently get a
different ABI.

There is really no need to specify 32-byte alignment here.  Is not
even the size of a standard cache line.  It can result in crashes if
these structs are heap-allocated using malloc, when optimizing for
AVX2.

For example, clang turns

void
clear (struct rseq *p)
{
  memset (p, 0, sizeof (*p));
}

into:

	vxorps	%xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0
	vmovaps	%ymm0, (%rdi)
	vzeroupper
	retq

My understanding is that vmovaps will trap if the pointer is
misaligned (“When the source or destination operand is a memory
operand, the operand must be aligned on a 32-byte boundary or a
general-protection exception (#GP) will be generated.”).

> However, now that it is in the wild, it's a bit late to change that.

I had forgotten about the alignment crashes.  I think we should
seriously consider changing the types. 8-(