From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>
Cc: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] BTI interaction between seccomp filters in systemd and glibc mprotect calls, causing service failures
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:54:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sga6snjn.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201022071812.GA324655@gardel-login> (Lennart Poettering's message of "Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:18:12 +0200")
* Lennart Poettering:
> On Mi, 21.10.20 22:44, Jeremy Linton (jeremy.linton@arm.com) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is a problem with glibc+systemd on BTI enabled systems. Systemd
>> has a service flag "MemoryDenyWriteExecute" which uses seccomp to deny
>> PROT_EXEC changes. Glibc enables BTI only on segments which are marked as
>> being BTI compatible by calling mprotect PROT_EXEC|PROT_BTI. That call is
>> caught by the seccomp filter, resulting in service failures.
>>
>> So, at the moment one has to pick either denying PROT_EXEC changes, or BTI.
>> This is obviously not desirable.
>>
>> Various changes have been suggested, replacing the mprotect with mmap calls
>> having PROT_BTI set on the original mapping, re-mmapping the segments,
>> implying PROT_EXEC on mprotect PROT_BTI calls when VM_EXEC is already set,
>> and various modification to seccomp to allow particular mprotect cases to
>> bypass the filters. In each case there seems to be an undesirable attribute
>> to the solution.
>>
>> So, whats the best solution?
>
> Did you see Topi's comments on the systemd issue?
>
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/17368#issuecomment-710485532
>
> I think I agree with this: it's a bit weird to alter the bits after
> the fact. Can't glibc set up everything right from the begining? That
> would keep both concepts working.
The dynamic loader has to process the LOAD segments to get to the ELF
note that says to enable BTI. Maybe we could do a first pass and load
only the segments that cover notes. But that requires lots of changes
to generic code in the loader.
Thanks,
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-22 7:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <8584c14f-5c28-9d70-c054-7c78127d84ea@arm.com>
2020-10-22 7:18 ` [systemd-devel] BTI interaction between seccomp filters in systemd and glibc mprotect calls, causing service failures Lennart Poettering
2020-10-22 7:54 ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2020-10-22 8:17 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 8:25 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-22 8:29 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-22 8:38 ` Lennart Poettering
2020-10-22 9:31 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-22 10:12 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 10:27 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-23 6:13 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-23 9:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-22 10:03 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 8:05 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-22 8:31 ` Lennart Poettering
[not found] ` <20201022075447.GO3819@arm.com>
2020-10-22 10:39 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-22 20:02 ` Kees Cook
2020-10-22 22:24 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-23 17:52 ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2020-10-24 11:34 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-24 14:12 ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2020-10-25 13:42 ` Jordan Glover
2020-10-23 9:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-24 11:01 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 14:52 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-26 15:56 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 16:51 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-26 16:31 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 16:24 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 16:39 ` Topi Miettinen
2020-10-26 16:45 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-27 14:22 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-27 14:41 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-26 16:57 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-10-26 17:52 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-26 22:39 ` Jeremy Linton
2020-10-27 14:15 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-29 11:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-11-04 12:18 ` Dave Martin
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=87sga6snjn.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com \
--to=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.martin@arm.com \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mzxreary@0pointer.de \
--cc=systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox