This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] ARM: Fix unparseable signal frame with CONFIG_IWMMXT
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 03:40:01PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:32:56PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:13:04AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > Hmm, I would actually suggest that we poke in a correct size for the
> > > missing iWMMXt record, and an invalid magic number as the "simple"
> > > solution for this - that doesn't make any layout changes to the
> > > data structures, and is probably the safest solution for backporting.
> > This avoids altering the sigframe layout at all in this case, which
> > feels less dirsuptive, but overall I'm not sure it's lower-risk.
> > I'm concerned that there are a some userspace sigframe parsers out there
> > that work only by accident, especially given that the kernel sigreturn
> > implementation is the primary example and that doesn't need to be fully
> > robust (since the kernel lays out the sigframe itself during signal
> > delivery).
> I'd hope that the kernel implementation is not used as an example - it
> most certainly is not an example, as it does no parsing of the data
> structures. As the kernel is responsible for creating the layout, it
> expects the exact same layout coming back in, and any deviation from
> that results in the task being forcefully exited.
Unfortunately, things that are not intended as examples do still get
used. We can argue that's the userspace folks' fault, but it still
creates de facto ABI...
> Userspace doesn't have the luxury of prior knowledge of the layout -
> it doesn't know how the kernel is configured. It can't assume (eg)
> that VFP will be at 0xa0 bytes in if IWMMXT but not CRUNCH is enabled.
> Basically, the layout that the kernel creates is entirely dependent on
> the kernel configuration, and any scheme that replicates what the kernel
> is doing in the restore paths is doomed to failure. (However, that's
> not to say userspace isn't, but if it is, userspace breaks if the kernel
> configuration is changed. I don't regard that as a kernel-induced
> userspace regression though - it's a bit like expecting EABI userspace
> to work with OABI-only supporting kernel.)
I'm actually a little confused by, say,
Assuming I'm looking in the right place here, glibc effectively uses its
own private format for uc_regspace -- maybe there is kernel history
here I'm not aware of, or maybe it's not even trying to be compatible.
Also, libunwind does not appear to attempt to parse uc_regspace:
I've not fully understood the gdb code, but there is a comment in
arm-linux-tdep.c that suggests that uc_regspace is not processed (nor do
I see any other mention of uc_regspace or things like VFP_MAGIC:
/* The VFP or iWMMXt registers may be saved on the stack, but there's
no reliable way to restore them (yet). */
Do you know of any userspace parser of uc_regspace?
All I have so far is this, from the reporter of the bug:
> Now, the possibilities for userspace to parse the "broken" kernel layout
> for VFP information are:
> 1. To use a fixed offset from the start (which means it breaks if the
> kernel is reconfigured.)
> 2. userspace checks several fixed offsets for the VFP identifier (at 0,
> 0xa0, 0xc0 or 0x160). That's risky if the other state happens to
> contain a word that looks like the VFP identifier.
> If userspace is using the proper method that the original code intended,
> userspace would hit uninitialised memory for the iWMMXT block identifier
> and size (they'd see stale data on the stack) and if they interpret the
> "size" field to try and skip over it, they could end up anywhere in
> memory space.
> Fixing it using your approach would mean that the VFP block ends up at
> a variable location depending on whether the iWMMXT state was saved -
> which certainly breaks (1) in a way that does not depend on kernel
> configuration. (2) survives as they'd find the identifier whatever
> My proposal solves all three cases, because userspace ends up with a
> correct size for what is an unknown block of code, and doesn't involve
> moving anything around. It shouldn't break the "correct" parsing that
> userspace should be doing either, because it should skip over the
> unknown block. The only case that it would break is if the identifier
> were to somehow match, and I think the chances of that are very slim.
> So I believe (without evidence to the contary) that this would be the
> lowest risk.
This seems reasonable.
Although I'm concerned that parsers may give up as soon as they see an
unknown block, that is at least a clean failure, and is better than
wandering off into the weeds. I haven't seen evidence of such a parser
existing, so far -- there will be ones I don't know about.
> > > Going forward, I think something along the lines of your proposal is
> > > okay.
> > I'm happy to do either, or propose one approach for stable and the other
> > for mainline, but it's hard to know which is least likely to break
> > userspace, or exactly what the ABI is.
> The intended ABI is a tagged list, where the list headers are made up
> of an identifier and a size (where the size gives the offset from the
> start of this block to the next - iow, from the address of the
> identifer.) The aux_sigframe structure is there as a convenience to
> the kernel (which is why it's not in uapi/).
> The interface was created by Daniel Jacobowitz from Codesourcery, and I
> believe Daniel was working on the userspace side at the same time, so I
> would hope that the userspace side does proper parsing - except for one
> issue - when Daniel was working on it, we weren't saving VFP state
> across signal handlers.
> The issue that you've found looks to have been there since the original
> design back in 2006.
Looks like it.
I'll update the patch to preserve the iWMMXt block on signal delivery
but define a new dummy tag for this case.
Should we enforce the same on sigreturn, or be more tolerant?
One issue is that I believe there is software out there (ab)using
sigreturn to do an atomic siglongjmp type operation.
There is some merit to this, since the effect cannot be achieved 100%
safely in any other way. However, it may require the caller to
manufacture a sigframe from scratch. If so, it may be natural to
omit the IWMMXT block (and indeed the VFP block, if the caller
doesn't care what's in the VFP registers at the destination).
The DynamoRIO example above takes a signal to generate a "template"
sigframe, which is then modified to produce the desired result.
Putting aside the issue of whether this is an abuse of sigreturn
or not (and the question of why they are doing it at all), this
seems a reasonable approach -- which they also apparently use for
x86. So their sigframe will contain the dummy iWMMXt block, but
it will have a valid tag if we patch the kernel to write one.
Other projects may not be so lucky if they don't use a delivered
signal as a template in this way.