linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] rseq: Allow extending struct 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200715105943.3xbbwbzwc6drughf@wittgenstein>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:59:43 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc:     Chris Kennelly <ckennelly@...gle.com>,
        Peter Oskolkov <posk@...gle.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        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>, carlos <carlos@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] rseq: Allow extending struct rseq

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 08:31:05AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Chris Kennelly:
> 
> > When glibc provides registration, is the anticipated use case that a
> > library would unregister and reregister each thread to "upgrade" it to
> > the most modern version of interface it knows about provided by the
> > kernel?
> 
> Absolutely not, that is likely to break other consumers because an
> expected rseq area becomes dormant instead.
> 
> > There, I could assume an all-or-nothing registration of the new
> > feature--limited only by kernel availability for thread
> > homogeneity--but inconsistencies across early adopter libraries would
> > mean each thread would have to examine its own TLS to determine if a
> > feature were available.

Fwiw, I pointed this out in the discussions that led up to this
patchset. I don't see how this can work if threads don't check for their
feature set.

> 
> Exactly.  Certain uses of seccomp can also have this effect,
> presenting a non-homogeneous view.

Good point. There might be threads with a seccomp filter that would
block rseq features is what you mean, I assume.

Christian