Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932661AbdDRUCQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:02:16 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:37037 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932475AbdDRUCO (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:02:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170418170118.GH27592@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1492088223-98232-1-git-send-email-zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>
 <2414e3b3-03f6-bd6c-5aa4-ad58c66b5aa5@huawei.com> <20170418170118.GH27592@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA_wH1dDbcjEEBaLX0q8pfWsfYUGGL-zOC4MuxySqa=uvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: "dongbo (E)" <dongbo4@huawei.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Peter Maydell <Peter.Maydell@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1132
Lines: 25

On 18 April 2017 at 18:01, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:33:52PM +0800, dongbo (E) wrote:
>> From: Dong Bo <dongbo4@huawei.com>
>>
>> In load_elf_binary(), once the READ_IMPLIES_EXEC flag is set,
>> the flag is propagated to its child processes, even the elf
>> files are marked as not requiring executable stack. It may
>> cause superfluous operations on some arch, e.g.
>> __sync_icache_dcache on aarch64 due to a PROT_READ mmap is
>> also marked as PROT_EXEC.

> That's affecting most architectures with a risk of ABI breakage. We
> could do it on arm64 only, though I'm not yet clear on the ABI
> implications (at a first look, there shouldn't be any).

Is there a reason why it isn't just straightforwardly a bug
(which we could fix) to make READ_IMPLIES_EXEC propagate to
child processes? AFAICT this should be per-process: just because
init happens not to have been (re)compiled to permit non-executable
stacks doesn't mean every process on the system needs to have
an executable stack. Behaviour shouldn't be variable across
architectures either, I would hope.

thanks
-- PMM