From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] elf: Allow architectures to parse properties on the main executable
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 16:16:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210609151622.GK4187@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210604112450.13344-2-broonie@kernel.org>
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:24:48PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Currently the ELF code only attempts to parse properties on the image
> that will start execution, either the interpreter or for statically linked
> executables the main executable. The expectation is that any property
> handling for the main executable will be done by the interpreter. This is
> a bit inconsistent since we do map the executable and is causing problems
> for the arm64 BTI support when used in conjunction with systemd's use of
> seccomp to implement MemoryDenyWriteExecute which stops the dynamic linker
> adjusting the permissions of executable segments.
>
> Allow architectures to handle properties for both the dynamic linker and
> main executable, adjusting arch_parse_elf_properties() to have an is_interp
> flag as with arch_elf_adjust_prot() and calling it for both the main
> executable and any intepreter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
I haven't got my head around whether we must move some of the arm64
logic from arch_elf_adjust_proc() to arch_parse_elf_properties(), but
either way, it would make sense to explain the direction of travel here.
(This may just be me failing to keep track of what's changing -- the
affected logic is retained for bisectability here and then dropped later
on in the series...)
It's a little annoying that we add has_interp all over the place only to
remove it again later, but I guess that may be the simplest way to keep
things bisectable while moving logic around. If so, I don't have a
strong opinion on it.
[...]
> diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> index 187b3f2b9202..253ca9969345 100644
> --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> @@ -716,8 +716,9 @@ static unsigned long load_elf_interp(struct elfhdr *interp_elf_ex,
> */
>
> static int parse_elf_property(const char *data, size_t *off, size_t datasz,
> - struct arch_elf_state *arch,
> - bool have_prev_type, u32 *prev_type)
> + struct arch_elf_state *arch, bool has_interp,
> + bool is_interp, bool have_prev_type,
> + u32 *prev_type)
> {
> size_t o, step;
> const struct gnu_property *pr;
> @@ -751,7 +752,8 @@ static int parse_elf_property(const char *data, size_t *off, size_t datasz,
> *prev_type = pr->pr_type;
>
> ret = arch_parse_elf_property(pr->pr_type, data + o,
> - pr->pr_datasz, ELF_COMPAT, arch);
> + pr->pr_datasz, ELF_COMPAT,
> + has_interp, is_interp, arch);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> @@ -764,6 +766,7 @@ static int parse_elf_property(const char *data, size_t *off, size_t datasz,
> #define NOTE_NAME_SZ (sizeof(GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0_NAME))
>
> static int parse_elf_properties(struct file *f, const struct elf_phdr *phdr,
> + bool has_interp, bool is_interp,
> struct arch_elf_state *arch)
> {
> union {
> @@ -813,7 +816,8 @@ static int parse_elf_properties(struct file *f, const struct elf_phdr *phdr,
> have_prev_type = false;
> do {
> ret = parse_elf_property(note.data, &off, datasz, arch,
> - have_prev_type, &prev_type);
> + has_interp, is_interp, have_prev_type,
> + &prev_type);
> have_prev_type = true;
> } while (!ret);
>
> @@ -828,6 +832,7 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> unsigned long error;
> struct elf_phdr *elf_ppnt, *elf_phdata, *interp_elf_phdata = NULL;
> struct elf_phdr *elf_property_phdata = NULL;
> + struct elf_phdr *interp_elf_property_phdata = NULL;
> unsigned long elf_bss, elf_brk;
> int bss_prot = 0;
> int retval, i;
> @@ -963,12 +968,11 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> goto out_free_dentry;
>
> /* Pass PT_LOPROC..PT_HIPROC headers to arch code */
> - elf_property_phdata = NULL;
> elf_ppnt = interp_elf_phdata;
> for (i = 0; i < interp_elf_ex->e_phnum; i++, elf_ppnt++)
> switch (elf_ppnt->p_type) {
> case PT_GNU_PROPERTY:
> - elf_property_phdata = elf_ppnt;
> + interp_elf_property_phdata = elf_ppnt;
> break;
>
> case PT_LOPROC ... PT_HIPROC:
> @@ -979,10 +983,17 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> goto out_free_dentry;
> break;
> }
> +
> + retval = parse_elf_properties(interpreter,
> + interp_elf_property_phdata,
> + true, true, &arch_state);
> + if (retval)
> + goto out_free_dentry;
> +
> }
>
> - retval = parse_elf_properties(interpreter ?: bprm->file,
> - elf_property_phdata, &arch_state);
> + retval = parse_elf_properties(bprm->file, elf_property_phdata,
> + interpreter, false, &arch_state);
Nit: interpreter != NULL?
(I guess it works as-is, but from the way this is written it looks a
little like we intend parse_elf_properties() to examine / modify
*interpreter, which is not the case.
> if (retval)
> goto out_free_dentry;
>
[...]
Cheers
---Dave
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] elf: Allow architectures to parse properties on the main executable
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 16:16:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210609151622.GK4187@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210604112450.13344-2-broonie@kernel.org>
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:24:48PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Currently the ELF code only attempts to parse properties on the image
> that will start execution, either the interpreter or for statically linked
> executables the main executable. The expectation is that any property
> handling for the main executable will be done by the interpreter. This is
> a bit inconsistent since we do map the executable and is causing problems
> for the arm64 BTI support when used in conjunction with systemd's use of
> seccomp to implement MemoryDenyWriteExecute which stops the dynamic linker
> adjusting the permissions of executable segments.
>
> Allow architectures to handle properties for both the dynamic linker and
> main executable, adjusting arch_parse_elf_properties() to have an is_interp
> flag as with arch_elf_adjust_prot() and calling it for both the main
> executable and any intepreter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
I haven't got my head around whether we must move some of the arm64
logic from arch_elf_adjust_proc() to arch_parse_elf_properties(), but
either way, it would make sense to explain the direction of travel here.
(This may just be me failing to keep track of what's changing -- the
affected logic is retained for bisectability here and then dropped later
on in the series...)
It's a little annoying that we add has_interp all over the place only to
remove it again later, but I guess that may be the simplest way to keep
things bisectable while moving logic around. If so, I don't have a
strong opinion on it.
[...]
> diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> index 187b3f2b9202..253ca9969345 100644
> --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> @@ -716,8 +716,9 @@ static unsigned long load_elf_interp(struct elfhdr *interp_elf_ex,
> */
>
> static int parse_elf_property(const char *data, size_t *off, size_t datasz,
> - struct arch_elf_state *arch,
> - bool have_prev_type, u32 *prev_type)
> + struct arch_elf_state *arch, bool has_interp,
> + bool is_interp, bool have_prev_type,
> + u32 *prev_type)
> {
> size_t o, step;
> const struct gnu_property *pr;
> @@ -751,7 +752,8 @@ static int parse_elf_property(const char *data, size_t *off, size_t datasz,
> *prev_type = pr->pr_type;
>
> ret = arch_parse_elf_property(pr->pr_type, data + o,
> - pr->pr_datasz, ELF_COMPAT, arch);
> + pr->pr_datasz, ELF_COMPAT,
> + has_interp, is_interp, arch);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> @@ -764,6 +766,7 @@ static int parse_elf_property(const char *data, size_t *off, size_t datasz,
> #define NOTE_NAME_SZ (sizeof(GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0_NAME))
>
> static int parse_elf_properties(struct file *f, const struct elf_phdr *phdr,
> + bool has_interp, bool is_interp,
> struct arch_elf_state *arch)
> {
> union {
> @@ -813,7 +816,8 @@ static int parse_elf_properties(struct file *f, const struct elf_phdr *phdr,
> have_prev_type = false;
> do {
> ret = parse_elf_property(note.data, &off, datasz, arch,
> - have_prev_type, &prev_type);
> + has_interp, is_interp, have_prev_type,
> + &prev_type);
> have_prev_type = true;
> } while (!ret);
>
> @@ -828,6 +832,7 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> unsigned long error;
> struct elf_phdr *elf_ppnt, *elf_phdata, *interp_elf_phdata = NULL;
> struct elf_phdr *elf_property_phdata = NULL;
> + struct elf_phdr *interp_elf_property_phdata = NULL;
> unsigned long elf_bss, elf_brk;
> int bss_prot = 0;
> int retval, i;
> @@ -963,12 +968,11 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> goto out_free_dentry;
>
> /* Pass PT_LOPROC..PT_HIPROC headers to arch code */
> - elf_property_phdata = NULL;
> elf_ppnt = interp_elf_phdata;
> for (i = 0; i < interp_elf_ex->e_phnum; i++, elf_ppnt++)
> switch (elf_ppnt->p_type) {
> case PT_GNU_PROPERTY:
> - elf_property_phdata = elf_ppnt;
> + interp_elf_property_phdata = elf_ppnt;
> break;
>
> case PT_LOPROC ... PT_HIPROC:
> @@ -979,10 +983,17 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> goto out_free_dentry;
> break;
> }
> +
> + retval = parse_elf_properties(interpreter,
> + interp_elf_property_phdata,
> + true, true, &arch_state);
> + if (retval)
> + goto out_free_dentry;
> +
> }
>
> - retval = parse_elf_properties(interpreter ?: bprm->file,
> - elf_property_phdata, &arch_state);
> + retval = parse_elf_properties(bprm->file, elf_property_phdata,
> + interpreter, false, &arch_state);
Nit: interpreter != NULL?
(I guess it works as-is, but from the way this is written it looks a
little like we intend parse_elf_properties() to examine / modify
*interpreter, which is not the case.
> if (retval)
> goto out_free_dentry;
>
[...]
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-09 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-04 11:24 [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Enable BTI for the executable as well as the interpreter Mark Brown
2021-06-04 11:24 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-04 11:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] elf: Allow architectures to parse properties on the main executable Mark Brown
2021-06-04 11:24 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-09 15:16 ` Dave Martin [this message]
2021-06-09 15:16 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 13:41 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-10 13:41 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-04 11:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: Enable BTI for main executable as well as the interpreter Mark Brown
2021-06-04 11:24 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-09 15:17 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-09 15:17 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 13:19 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-10 13:19 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-10 15:34 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 15:34 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-04 11:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] elf: Remove has_interp property from arch_adjust_elf_prot() Mark Brown
2021-06-04 11:24 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-09 15:17 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-09 15:17 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-09 16:55 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2021-06-09 16:55 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2021-06-10 9:58 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 9:58 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 18:17 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2021-06-10 18:17 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2021-06-10 13:34 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-10 13:34 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-10 15:40 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 15:40 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 16:28 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Enable BTI for the executable as well as the interpreter Jeremy Linton
2021-06-10 16:28 ` Jeremy Linton
2021-06-14 16:00 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-14 16:00 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-15 15:22 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-15 15:22 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-15 15:33 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-15 15:33 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-15 15:41 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-15 15:41 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-16 5:12 ` Jeremy Linton
2021-06-16 5:12 ` Jeremy Linton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210609151622.GK4187@arm.com \
--to=dave.martin@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yu-cheng.yu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.