linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] x86/signal: Introduce helpers to get the maximum signal frame size

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: <20201007100558.GE6642@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:05:59 +0100
From:   Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To:     "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Cc:     "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] x86/signal: Introduce helpers to get the maximum
 signal frame size

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:45:24PM +0000, Bae, Chang Seok wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 14:42 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 01:57:43PM -0700, Chang S. Bae wrote:
> > > 
> > > +/*
> > > + * The FP state frame contains an XSAVE buffer which must be 64-byte aligned.
> > > + * If a signal frame starts at an unaligned address, extra space is required.
> > > + * This is the max alignment padding, conservatively.
> > > + */
> > > +#define MAX_XSAVE_PADDING	63UL
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * The frame data is composed of the following areas and laid out as:
> > > + *
> > > + * -------------------------
> > > + * | alignment padding     |
> > > + * -------------------------
> > > + * | (f)xsave frame        |
> > > + * -------------------------
> > > + * | fsave header          |
> > > + * -------------------------
> > > + * | siginfo + ucontext    |
> > > + * -------------------------
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +/* max_frame_size tells userspace the worst case signal stack size. */
> > > +static unsigned long __ro_after_init max_frame_size;
> > > +
> > > +void __init init_sigframe_size(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Use the largest of possible structure formats. This might
> > > +	 * slightly oversize the frame for 64-bit apps.
> > > +	 */
> > > +
> > > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32) ||
> > > +	    IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION))
> > > +		max_frame_size = max((unsigned long)SIZEOF_sigframe_ia32,
> > > +				     (unsigned long)SIZEOF_rt_sigframe_ia32);
> > > +
> > > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_X32_ABI))
> > > +		max_frame_size = max(max_frame_size, (unsigned long)SIZEOF_rt_sigframe_x32);
> > > +
> > > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64))
> > > +		max_frame_size = max(max_frame_size, (unsigned long)SIZEOF_rt_sigframe);
> > > +
> > > +	max_frame_size += fpu__get_fpstate_sigframe_size() + MAX_XSAVE_PADDING;
> > 
> > For arm64, we round the worst-case padding up by one.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, I saw that. The ARM code adds the max padding, too:
> 
> 	signal_minsigstksz = sigframe_size(&user) +
> 		round_up(sizeof(struct frame_record), 16) +
> 		16; /* max alignment padding */
> 
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c#n973
> 
> > I can't remember the full rationale for this, but it at least seemed a
> > bit weird to report a size that is not a multiple of the alignment.
> > 
> 
> Because the last state size of XSAVE may not be 64B aligned, the (reported)
> sum of xstate size here does not guarantee 64B alignment.
> 
> > I'm can't think of a clear argument as to why it really matters, though.
> 
> We care about the start of XSAVE buffer for the XSAVE instructions, to be
> 64B-aligned.

Ah, I see.  That makes sense.

For arm64, there is no additional alignment padding inside the frame,
only the padding inserted after the frame to ensure that the base
address is 16-byte aligned.

However, I wonder whether people will tend to assume that AT_MINSIGSTKSZ
is a sensible (if minimal) amount of stack to allocate.  Allocating an
odd number of bytes, or any amount that isn't a multiple of the
architecture's preferred (or mandated) stack alignment probably doesn't
make sense.

AArch64 has a mandatory stack alignment of 16 bytes; I'm not sure about
x86.

Cheers
---Dave