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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2c625f72-ed5d-4426-abd9-5d80bfe40694@efficios.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 14:16:54 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: 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 12:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Oh, so CPU 1 initially executes some code, returns to some safe,
> persistent code (“the execute unrelated code” part), this code
> synchronizes with the dlclose and the dlopen that execute on CPU 0,
> obtains a pointer to some supposedly safely published function in the
> newly mapped object, and calls it.  And that fails because previously
> cached information about the code is invalid?

Correct.

> 
> Additional awkwardness may result if the initial execution is
> speculative, and the code on CPU 1 only synchronizes with the dlopen,
> and not the previous dlclose because it does not know about it at all?

I'm not sure I follow this last example. Can you explain further what
you have in mind ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> Thanks,
> Florian
> 

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