Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-75458-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240220235415.GP4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <a57d6c7eada4b9a7c35addbc8556f5b53a0c3e6f.camel@intel.com>
 <20240221012736.GQ4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <d18f060d-37ac-48b1-9f67-a5c5db79b34e@sirena.org.uk>
 <20240221145800.GR4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <4a3809e8-61b2-4341-a868-292ba6e64e8a@sirena.org.uk>
 <20240221175717.GS4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <f4a54297767eb098d903404cbe8860d655d79bed.camel@intel.com>
 <20240221183055.GT4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <c3085fbe10193dfe59b25bc7da776e60779b0e8c.camel@intel.com>
 <20240221190639.GU4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <e3a432c0fa9f5fe837e9d2fc7b36304709a34428.camel@intel.com>
 <CAMe9rOoUO-D7Uoj9s3eq+w9pJBZ=iucEDpU4hqtJYtPmW5T4dQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOoUO-D7Uoj9s3eq+w9pJBZ=iucEDpU4hqtJYtPmW5T4dQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 12:25:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOr1frpnKSnVQrqeiKK3aAR3xpG=VAiPYLOR9OpHnHhYUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH v8 00/38] arm64/gcs: Provide support for GCS in userspace
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: "dalias@libc.org" <dalias@libc.org>, 
	"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"suzuki.poulose@arm.com" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, "Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>, 
	"musl@lists.openwall.com" <musl@lists.openwall.com>, 
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, 
	"kvmarm@lists.linux.dev" <kvmarm@lists.linux.dev>, "corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, "broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>, 
	"oliver.upton@linux.dev" <oliver.upton@linux.dev>, "palmer@dabbelt.com" <palmer@dabbelt.com>, 
	"debug@rivosinc.com" <debug@rivosinc.com>, "aou@eecs.berkeley.edu" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, 
	"shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>, "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>, "maz@kernel.org" <maz@kernel.org>, 
	"oleg@redhat.com" <oleg@redhat.com>, "fweimer@redhat.com" <fweimer@redhat.com>, 
	"keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>, "james.morse@arm.com" <james.morse@arm.com>, 
	"ebiederm@xmission.com" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>, 
	"brauner@kernel.org" <brauner@kernel.org>, 
	"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"paul.walmsley@sifive.com" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, "ardb@kernel.org" <ardb@kernel.org>, 
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, 
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>, 
	"thiago.bauermann@linaro.org" <thiago.bauermann@linaro.org>, 
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "sorear@fastmail.com" <sorear@fastmail.com>, 
	"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:18=E2=80=AFPM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:22=E2=80=AFAM Edgecombe, Rick P
> <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 14:06 -0500, dalias@libc.org wrote:
> > > Due to arbitrarily nestable signal frames, no, this does not suffice.
> > > An interrupted operation using the lock could be arbitrarily delayed,
> > > even never execute again, making any call to dlopen deadlock.
> >
> > Doh! Yep, it is not robust to this. The only thing that could be done
> > would be a timeout in dlopen(). Which would make the whole thing just
> > better than nothing.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's fine to turn RDSSP into an actual emulated read of the SSP, or
> > > at
> > > least an emulated load of zero so that uninitialized data is not left
> > > in the target register.
> >
> > We can't intercept RDSSP, but it becomes a NOP by default. (disclaimer
> > x86-only knowledge).
> >
> > >  If doing the latter, code working with the
> > > shadow stack just needs to be prepared for the possibility that it
> > > could be async-disabled, and check the return value.
> > >
> > > I have not looked at all the instructions that become #UD but I
> > > suspect they all have reasonable trivial ways to implement a
> > > "disabled" version of them that userspace can act upon reasonably.
> >
> > This would have to be thought through functionally and performance
> > wise. I'm not opposed if can come up with a fully fleshed out plan. How
> > serious are you in pursuing musl support, if we had something like
> > this?
> >
> > HJ, any thoughts on whether glibc would use this as well?
>
> Assuming that we are talking about permissive mode,  if kernel can
> suppress UD, we don't need to disable SHSTK.   Glibc can enable
> ARCH_SHSTK_SUPPRESS_UD instead.

Kernel must suppress all possible SHSTK UDs.

> > It is probably worth mentioning that from the security side (as Mark
> > mentioned there is always tension in the tradeoffs on these features),
> > permissive mode is seen by some as something that weakens security too
> > much. Apps could call dlopen() on a known unsupported DSO before doing
> > ROP. I don't know if you have any musl users with specific shadow stack
> > use cases to ask about this.
>
>
>
> --
> H.J.


--=20
H.J.