lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH for 4.15 00/24] Restartable sequences and CPU op vector v11
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>
> ----- On Nov 14, 2017, at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@amacapital.net wrote:
>
>
> One thing I kept however that diverge from your recommendation is the
> "sign" parameter to the rseq syscall. I prefer this flexible
> approach to a hardcoded signature value. We never know when we may
> need to randomize or change this in the future.
>
> Regarding abort target signature the vs x86 disassemblers, I used a
> 5-byte no-op on x86 32/64:
>
> x86-32: nopl <sig>
> x86-64: nopl <sig>(%rip)

I still don't see how this can possibly work well with libraries. If
glibc or whatever issues the syscall and registers some signature,
that signature *must* match the expectation of all libraries used in
that thread or it's not going to work. I can see two reasonable ways
to handle it:

1. The signature is just a well-known constant. If you have an rseq
abort landing site, you end up with something like:

nopl $11223344(%rip)
landing_site:

or whatever the constant is.

2. The signature varies depending on the rseq_cs in use. So you get:

static struct rseq_cs this_cs = {
.signature = 0x55667788;
...
};

and then the abort landing site has:

nopl $11223344(%rip)
nopl $55667788(%rax)
landing_site:

The former is a bit easier to deal with. The latter has the nice
property that you can't subvert one rseq_cs to land somewhere else,
but it's not clear to me how what actual attack this prevents, so I
think I prefer #1. I just think that your variant is asking for
trouble down the road with incompatible userspace.

--Andy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-15 05:13    [W:0.109 / U:1.568 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site