linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] rseq: x86: implement abort-at-ip extension

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: <688677480.24662.1642001192132.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:26:32 -0500 (EST)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        carlos <carlos@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rseq: x86: implement abort-at-ip extension

----- On Jan 12, 2022, at 10:16 AM, Florian Weimer fw@...eb.enyo.de wrote:

> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
> 
>> ----- On Jan 7, 2022, at 2:31 PM, Florian Weimer fw@...eb.enyo.de wrote:
>>
>>> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>>> 
>>>> Allow rseq critical section abort handlers to optionally figure out at
>>>> which instruction pointer the rseq critical section was aborted.
>>>>
>>>> This allows implementing rseq critical sections containing loops, in
>>>> which case the commit side-effect cannot be the last instruction. This
>>>> is useful to implement adaptative mutexes aware of preemption in
>>>> user-space. (see [1])
>>> 
>>> Could you write the program counter to the rseq area instead?  This
>>> would avoid discussing which register to clobber.
>>
>> Using the rseq area for that purpose would be problematic for nested signal
>> handlers with rseq critical sections. If a signal happens to be delivered
>> right after the abort ip adjustment, its signal handler containing a rseq
>> critical section could overwrite the relevant "abort-at-ip" field in the
>> rseq per-thread area before it has been read by the abort handler interrupted
>> by the signal.
>>
>> Making this architecture-agnostic is indeed a laudable goal, but I don't
>> think the rseq per-thread area is a good fit for this.
>>
>> I also though about making the clobbered register configurable on a
>> per-critical-section basis, but I rather think that it would be
>> overengineered: too much complexity for the gain. Unless there are
>> very strong reasons for choosing one register over another on a per
>> use-case basis ?
> 
> You could perhaps push a signal frame onto the stack.  It's going to
> be expensive, but it's already in the context switch path, so maybe it
> does not matter.

The route I'm taking in my subsequent version of the patch is very close to
pushing a signal frame: on abort, skip the redzone, and push the abort-at-ip
pointer. Then abort handler is then expected to pop the abort-at-ip pointer
and unskip the redzone.

Thanks,

Mathieu

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