linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rseq: Kill process when unknown flags are encountered in ABI structures

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: <1656318880.93523.1659364965914.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 10:42:45 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rseq: Kill process when unknown flags are
 encountered in ABI structures

----- On Aug 1, 2022, at 10:25 AM, Florian Weimer fweimer@...hat.com wrote:

> * Ingo Molnar:
> 
>> * 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.
> 
> I believe glibc initializes the flag fields to zero before calling the
> rseq system call.  (I don't know if the rseq system call does its own
> initialization; maybe it should if it doesn't do so already.)

Initialization and following updates of rseq_abi()->flags and
rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->flags is done by user-space, so the rseq
system call does not initialize any of those fields.

Indeed glibc initialize the rseq_abi()->flags to 0, and does not
use rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->flags as of now.

Thanks,

Mathieu

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