This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: rseq/s390: choosing code signature
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>
- To: schwidefsky <schwidefsky at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: heiko carstens <heiko dot carstens at de dot ibm dot com>, gor <gor at linux dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, carlos <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 11:50:39 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: rseq/s390: choosing code signature
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 276F81D6912
- References: <1779981820.2626.1554838342731.JavaMail.email@example.com> <20190410123258.37f182cf@mschwideX1>
----- On Apr 10, 2019, at 6:32 AM, schwidefsky firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:32:22 -0400 (EDT)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <email@example.com> wrote:
>> We are about to include the code signature required prior to restartable
>> sequences abort handlers into glibc, which will make this ABI choice final.
>> We need architecture maintainer input on that signature value.
>> That code signature is placed before each abort handler, so the kernel can
>> validate that it is indeed jumping to an abort handler (and not some
>> arbitrary attacker-chosen code). The signature is never executed.
>> The current discussion thread on the glibc mailing list leads us towards
>> using a trap with uncommon immediate operand, which simplifies integration
>> with disassemblers, emulators, makes it easier to debug if the control
>> flow gets redirected there by mistake, and is nicer for some architecture's
>> speculative execution.
>> We can have different signatures for each sub-architecture, as long as they
>> don't have to co-exist within the same process. We can special-case with
>> #ifdef for each sub-architecture and endianness if need be. If the architecture
>> has instruction set extensions that can co-exist with the architecture
>> instruction set within the same process, we need to take into account to which
>> instruction the chosen signature value would map (and possibly decide if we
>> need to extend rseq to support many signatures).
>> Here is an example of rseq signature definition template:
>> * TODO: document trap instruction objdump output on each sub-architecture
>> * instruction sets, as well as instruction set extensions.
>> #define RSEQ_SIG 0x########
>> Ideally we'd need a patch on top of the Linux kernel
>> tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-s390.h file that updates
>> the signature value, so I can then pick it up for the glibc
> The trap4 instruction is a suitable one. The patch would look like this
Great! I'm picking it up into my rseq tree if that's OK with you.
> commit 2ee28f6d1de968a71f074ab150384b90b4121216
> Author: Martin Schwidefsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Wed Apr 10 12:28:41 2019 +0200
> s390/rseq: use trap4 for RSEQ_SIG
> Use trap4 as the guard instruction for the restartable sequence abort
> Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <email@example.com>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-s390.h
> index 1069e85258ce..d4c8e1147d86 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-s390.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-s390.h
> @@ -1,6 +1,13 @@
> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1 OR MIT */
> -#define RSEQ_SIG 0x53053053
> + * RSEQ_SIG uses the trap4 instruction. As Linux does not make use of the
> + * access-register mode nor the linkage stack this instruction will always
> + * cause a special-operation exception (the trap-enabled bit in the DUCT
> + * is and will stay 0). The instruction pattern is
> + * b2 ff 0f ff trap4 4095(%r0)
> + */
> +#define RSEQ_SIG 0xB2FF0FFF
> #define rseq_smp_mb() __asm__ __volatile__ ("bcr 15,0" ::: "memory")
> #define rseq_smp_rmb() rseq_smp_mb()
> blue skies,
> "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.