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: <8b3911b9-aa6b-408b-b913-114ec585e50e@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:33:20 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
	libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
	"carlos@...hat.com" <carlos@...hat.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: Prevent inconsistent CPU state after sequence of dlclose/dlopen

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:13:58PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2025-01-10 12:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Mathieu Desnoyers:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > I maintain the membarrier(2) system call, which provides a
> > > MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE command for this
> > > purpose. It's been there since Linux 4.16. It can be configured
> > > out (CONFIG_MEMBARRIER=n), but it's enabled by default.
> > > 
> > > Calling this after dlclose() in glibc would prevent this issue.
> > > 
> > > Is it handled in some other way, or should we open a bugzilla
> > > entry to track this ?
> > 
> > There is nothing special about dlopen/dlclose, we just use mmap/munmap.
> > If there is a synchronization problem, we'd have to add to add barriers
> > to mmap and munmap.
> > 
> > But why isn't it up to the kernel to handle this correctly?
> 
> As I mentioned to Peter, we could add this barrier within mprotect(2)
> and munmap(2) in the following cases:
> 
> - mprotect removes PROT_EXEC from a mapping,
> - munmap unmaps a PROT_EXEC mapping.
> 
> We could even go further and batch this: we only need to
> issue membarrier-sync-core on the following sequence for an mm:
> 
> On either of those, set current->mm->pending_membarrier_sync_core = true:
>   - mprotect removes PROT_EXEC from a mapping, or
>   - munmap unmaps a PROT_EXEC mapping,
> 
> And then, if current->mm->pending_membarrier_sync_core == true when:
>   - mmap is called to create a PROT_EXEC mapping, or
>   - mprotect sets PROT_EXEC on a mapping.
> 
>   invoke membarrier sync-core and set
>   current->mm_pending_membarrier = false
> 
> Thoughts ?

In the case where the kernel is permitted to choose the address of the
new mapping, we could batch the sys_membarrier() calls, keeping the
corresponding address space out of service in the meantime.

Don't tell me, a given dynamic library always picks the same address?  :-/

							Thanx, Paul