Re: Prevent inconsistent CPU state after sequence of dlclose/dlopen

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:02:27PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2025-01-10 11:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 10:55:36AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I was discussing with Mark Rutland recently, and he pointed out that a
> > > sequence of dlclose/dlopen mapping new code at the same addresses in
> > > multithreaded environments is an issue on ARM, and possibly on Intel/AMD
> > > with the newer TLB broadcast maintenance.
> > 
> > What is the exact race? Should not munmap() invalidate the TLBs before
> > it allows overlapping mmap() to complete?
> 
> The race Mark mentioned (on ARM) is AFAIU the following scenario:
> 
> CPU 0                     CPU 1
> 
> - dlopen()
>   - mmap PROT_EXEC @addr
>                           - fetch insn @addr, CPU state expects unchanged insn.
>                           - execute unrelated code
> - dlclose(addr)
>   - munmap @addr
> - dlopen()
>   - mmap PROT_EXEC @addr
>                           - fetch new insn @addr. Incoherent CPU state.

Urgh.. Mark, is this because of non-coherent i-cache or somesuch misery?

But shouldn't flush_{,i}cache_range() or something along those lines not
handle this?