Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:41:22 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 22/27] binfmt_elf: Extract .note.gnu.property from an
 ELF file
Message-ID: <20190618124122.GH3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190606200646.3951-23-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <20190607180115.GJ28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <94b9c55b3b874825fda485af40ab2a6bc3dad171.camel@intel.com>
 <87lfy9cq04.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
 <20190611114109.GN28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <031bc55d8dcdcf4f031e6ff27c33fd52c61d33a5.camel@intel.com>
 <20190612093238.GQ28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <87imt4jwpt.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1906171418220.1854@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190618091248.GB2790@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190618091248.GB2790@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:12:50AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 02:20:40PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Dave Martin:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:31:34PM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > > >> We can probably check PT_GNU_PROPERTY first, and fallback (based on ld-linux
> > > >> version?) to PT_NOTE scanning?
> > > >
> > > > For arm64, we can check for PT_GNU_PROPERTY and then give up
> > > > unconditionally.
> > > >
> > > > For x86, we would fall back to PT_NOTE scanning, but this will add a bit
> > > > of cost to binaries that don't have NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0.  The ld.so
> > > > version doesn't tell you what ELF ABI a given executable conforms to.
> > > >
> > > > Since this sounds like it's largely a distro-specific issue, maybe there
> > > > could be a Kconfig option to turn the fallback PT_NOTE scanning on?
> > > 
> > > I'm worried that this causes interop issues similarly to what we see
> > > with VSYSCALL today.  If we need both and a way to disable it, it should
> > > be something like a personality flag which can be configured for each
> > > process tree separately.  Ideally, we'd settle on one correct approach
> > > (i.e., either always process both, or only process PT_GNU_PROPERTY) and
> > > enforce that.
> > 
> > Chose one and only the one which makes technically sense and is not some
> > horrible vehicle.
> > 
> > Everytime we did those 'oh we need to make x fly workarounds' we regretted
> > it sooner than later.
> 
> So I guess that points to keeping PT_NOTE scanning always available as a
> fallback on x86.  This sucks a bit, but if there are binaries already in
> the wild that rely on this, I don't think we have much choice...

I'm not sure I read Thomas' comment like that. In my reading keeping the
PT_NOTE fallback is exactly one of those 'fly workarounds'. By not
supporting PT_NOTE only the 'fine' people already shit^Hpping this out
of tree are affected, and we don't have to care about them at all.