All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: 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>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/2] arm64: Enable BTI for main executable as well as the interpreter
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 18:24:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yh0TR3l6kWpsg0uu@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220228130606.1070960-3-broonie@kernel.org>

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 01:06:06PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> index 5369e649fa79..82aaf361fa17 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> @@ -701,23 +701,49 @@ core_initcall(tagged_addr_init);
>  #endif	/* CONFIG_ARM64_TAGGED_ADDR_ABI */
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> +static unsigned int bti_main;
> +
>  int arch_elf_adjust_prot(int prot, const struct arch_elf_state *state,
>  			 bool has_interp, bool is_interp)
>  {
> -	/*
> -	 * For dynamically linked executables the interpreter is
> -	 * responsible for setting PROT_BTI on everything except
> -	 * itself.
> -	 */
> -	if (is_interp != has_interp)
> -		return prot;
> -
> -	if (!(state->flags & ARM64_ELF_BTI))
> -		return prot;
> -
> -	if (prot & PROT_EXEC)
> +	if ((prot & PROT_EXEC) &&
> +	    (is_interp || !has_interp || bti_main) &&
> +	    (state->flags & arm64_elf_bti_flag(is_interp)))
>  		prot |= PROT_BTI;
>  
>  	return prot;
>  }

TBH, I liked the other series more as we were getting rid of
'has_interp' in patches 3 and 4. Now we keep it around only for the
bti_main case on dynamic executables (i.e. we need to distinguish them
from static). We could still get rid of has_interp if bti_main was
default on and it affected static binaries as well (for consistency, it
wouldn't be a bad idea).

I think the risk of ABI breaking is negligible in a glibc distro since
currently the dynamic loader sets PROT_BTI on the main exe anyway, just
as the kernel does after this series.

Anyway, from a correctness perspective, this patch looks fine to me,
just a preference for the other series:

Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: 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>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/2] arm64: Enable BTI for main executable as well as the interpreter
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 18:24:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yh0TR3l6kWpsg0uu@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220228130606.1070960-3-broonie@kernel.org>

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 01:06:06PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> index 5369e649fa79..82aaf361fa17 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> @@ -701,23 +701,49 @@ core_initcall(tagged_addr_init);
>  #endif	/* CONFIG_ARM64_TAGGED_ADDR_ABI */
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> +static unsigned int bti_main;
> +
>  int arch_elf_adjust_prot(int prot, const struct arch_elf_state *state,
>  			 bool has_interp, bool is_interp)
>  {
> -	/*
> -	 * For dynamically linked executables the interpreter is
> -	 * responsible for setting PROT_BTI on everything except
> -	 * itself.
> -	 */
> -	if (is_interp != has_interp)
> -		return prot;
> -
> -	if (!(state->flags & ARM64_ELF_BTI))
> -		return prot;
> -
> -	if (prot & PROT_EXEC)
> +	if ((prot & PROT_EXEC) &&
> +	    (is_interp || !has_interp || bti_main) &&
> +	    (state->flags & arm64_elf_bti_flag(is_interp)))
>  		prot |= PROT_BTI;
>  
>  	return prot;
>  }

TBH, I liked the other series more as we were getting rid of
'has_interp' in patches 3 and 4. Now we keep it around only for the
bti_main case on dynamic executables (i.e. we need to distinguish them
from static). We could still get rid of has_interp if bti_main was
default on and it affected static binaries as well (for consistency, it
wouldn't be a bad idea).

I think the risk of ABI breaking is negligible in a glibc distro since
currently the dynamic loader sets PROT_BTI on the main exe anyway, just
as the kernel does after this series.

Anyway, from a correctness perspective, this patch looks fine to me,
just a preference for the other series:

Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-28 18:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-28 13:06 [PATCH v10 0/2] arm64: Enable BTI for the executable as well as the interpreter Mark Brown
2022-02-28 13:06 ` Mark Brown
2022-02-28 13:06 ` [PATCH v10 1/2] elf: Allow architectures to parse properties on the main executable Mark Brown
2022-02-28 13:06   ` Mark Brown
2022-03-08  0:00   ` Kees Cook
2022-03-08  0:00     ` Kees Cook
2022-03-08  9:45     ` Will Deacon
2022-03-08  9:45       ` Will Deacon
2022-03-08 12:21     ` Mark Brown
2022-03-08 12:21       ` Mark Brown
2022-02-28 13:06 ` [PATCH v10 2/2] arm64: Enable BTI for main executable as well as the interpreter Mark Brown
2022-02-28 13:06   ` Mark Brown
2022-02-28 18:24   ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2022-02-28 18:24     ` Catalin Marinas
2022-03-07 22:03 ` [PATCH v10 0/2] arm64: Enable BTI for the " Will Deacon
2022-03-07 22:03   ` Will Deacon

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=Yh0TR3l6kWpsg0uu@arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    --cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --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.