linux-kernel - Re: Prevent inconsistent CPU state after sequence of dlclose/dlopen

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: <e961225c-fc76-4a9a-b24e-cf537ba76038@efficios.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 12:35:46 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
 Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 "libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
 "carlos@...hat.com" <carlos@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland
 <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 x86@...nel.org, paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
 Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: Prevent inconsistent CPU state after sequence of dlclose/dlopen

On 2025-01-10 12:24, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/01/25 14:15, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> On 2025-01-10 12:10, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-01-10 11:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 10:55:36AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was discussing with Mark Rutland recently, and he pointed out that a
>>>>>> sequence of dlclose/dlopen mapping new code at the same addresses in
>>>>>> multithreaded environments is an issue on ARM, and possibly on Intel/AMD
>>>>>> with the newer TLB broadcast maintenance.
>>>>> What is the exact race? Should not munmap() invalidate the TLBs
>>>>> before
>>>>> it allows overlapping mmap() to complete?
>>>>
>>>> The race Mark mentioned (on ARM) is AFAIU the following scenario:
>>>>
>>>> CPU 0                     CPU 1
>>>>
>>>> - dlopen()
>>>>     - mmap PROT_EXEC @addr
>>>>                             - fetch insn @addr, CPU state expects unchanged insn.
>>>>                             - execute unrelated code
>>>> - dlclose(addr)
>>>>     - munmap @addr
>>>> - dlopen()
>>>>     - mmap PROT_EXEC @addr
>>>>                             - fetch new insn @addr. Incoherent CPU state.
>>>
>>> Unmapping an object while code is executing in it is undefined.
>>
>> That's not the scenario though. In this scenario, CPU 1 executes
>> _unrelated code_ while we unmap @addr.
> 
> But in this scenario you still a concurrent dlclose while you have a running
> thread executing code from that module, right? Or am I still missing something
> here?

No.

> 
> Or, are you saying that even after dlopen returns (assuming the scenario where
> it maps the code in a previous used mapping), the CPU is in an inconsistent
> state unless MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE is issued?

Yes, this is it.

And the issue is not specific to dlopen/dlclose. We can have a similar
issue if we have a sequence of:

dlopen  @addr
dlclose
mmap PROT_EXEC|PROT_WRITE  @addr
   - JIT writes some code and jumps to it.

So it appears to be something we may want to fix at the kernel level.

Thanks,

Mathieu


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