linux-kernel - Re: [systemd-devel] BTI interaction between seccomp filters in systemd and glibc mprotect calls, causing service failures

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]

Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:29:12 +0100
From:   Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>
To:     Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        systemd-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
        Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] BTI interaction between seccomp filters in
 systemd and glibc mprotect calls, causing service failures

The 10/22/2020 11:17, Topi Miettinen via Libc-alpha wrote:
> On 22.10.2020 10.54, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Lennart Poettering:
> > > Did you see Topi's comments on the systemd issue?
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/17368#issuecomment-710485532
> > > 
> > > I think I agree with this: it's a bit weird to alter the bits after
> > > the fact. Can't glibc set up everything right from the begining? That
> > > would keep both concepts working.
> > 
> > The dynamic loader has to process the LOAD segments to get to the ELF
> > note that says to enable BTI.  Maybe we could do a first pass and load
> > only the segments that cover notes.  But that requires lots of changes
> > to generic code in the loader.
> 
> What if the loader always enabled BTI for PROT_EXEC pages, but then when
> discovering that this was a mistake, mprotect() the pages without BTI? Then
> both BTI and MDWX would work and the penalty of not getting MDWX would fall
> to non-BTI programs. What's the expected proportion of BTI enabled code vs.
> disabled in the future, is it perhaps expected that a distro would enable
> the flag globally so eventually only a few legacy programs might be
> unprotected?

i thought mprotect(PROT_EXEC) would get filtered
with or without bti, is that not the case?

then i guess we can do the protection that way
around, but then i don't see why the filter cannot
treat PROT_EXEC|PROT_BTI the same as PROT_EXEC.