[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1686554751.93506.1659364793386.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 10:39:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <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>,
Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rseq: Kill process when unknown flags are
encountered in ABI structures
----- On Aug 1, 2022, at 9:32 AM, Ingo Molnar mingo@...nel.org wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>
>> rseq_abi()->flags and rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->flags 29 upper bits are
>> currently unused.
>>
>> The current behavior when those bits are set is to ignore them. This is
>> not an ideal behavior, because when future features will start using
>> those flags, if user-space fails to correctly validate that the kernel
>> indeed supports those flags (e.g. with a new sys_rseq flags bit) before
>> using them, it may incorrectly assume that the kernel will handle those
>> flags way when in fact those will be silently ignored on older kernels.
>>
>> Validating that unused flags bits are cleared will allow a smoother
>> transition when those flags will start to be used by allowing
>> applications to fail early, and obviously, when they attempt to use the
>> new flags on an older kernel that does not support them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/rseq.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/rseq.c b/kernel/rseq.c
>> index 81d7dc80787b..bda8175f8f99 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rseq.c
>> +++ b/kernel/rseq.c
>> @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ static int rseq_need_restart(struct task_struct *t, u32
>> cs_flags)
>> u32 flags, event_mask;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cs_flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS))
>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cs_flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS) || cs_flags)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> /* Get thread flags. */
>> @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static int rseq_need_restart(struct task_struct *t, u32
>> cs_flags)
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS))
>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS) || flags)
>> return -EINVAL;
>
> Just to make it clear: no existing libraries/tooling out there have learned
> to rely on the old ABI that ignored unset flags, right? Only then is this
> patch ABI-safe.
The projects I know about that use rseq at the moment don't rely on the old ABI
ignoring unset flags:
- glibc initialize the rseq_abi()->flags to 0 and do not use rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->flags yet.
- tcmalloc initialize rseq_abi()->flags and rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->flags to 0.
- librseq (still only a master branch, no officially released public API yet) initialize
rseq_abi()->flags and rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->cs_flags to 0.
- the Linux kernel selftests initialize rseq_abi()->flags and rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->cs_flags
to 0.
- AFAIK DynamoRIO does not rely on the kernel ignoring unset flags bits.
- AFAIK CRIU does not rely on the kernel ignoring unset flags bits.
If anyone else rely on rseq ignoring those unset flags, please yell now.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists