Re: [PATCH v2 01/39] Documentation/x86: Add CET description

Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-10-13T21:28:42Z

On Wed, 2022-10-12 at 14:29 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The ABI was finalized around four years ago, and we have shipped
> several
> Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions with it. Other
> distributions did as well. It's a bit late to make changes now, and
> certainly not for such trivialities. In the case of the IBT ABI, it
> may
> be tempting to start over in a less trivial way, to radically reduce
> the
> amount of ENDBR instructions. But that doesn't concern SHSTK, and
> there's no actual implementation anyway.
>
> But as H.J. implied, you would have to do rather nasty things in the
> kernel to prevent us from achieving ABI compatibility in userspace,
> like
> parsing property notes on the main executable and disabling the new
> arch_prctl calls if you see something there that you don't like. 8-)
> Of course no one is going to implement that.
>
> (We are fine with swapping out glibc and its dynamic loader to enable
> CET with the appropriate kernel mechanism, but we wouldn't want to
> change the way all other binaries are marked up.)

So we have these compatibility issues with existing binaries. We know
some apps are totally broken. It sounds like you are proposing to
ignore this and let people who hit the issues work through it
themselves. This was also proposed by other glibc developers as a
solution for past CET compatibility issues that broke boot on kernel
upgrade. I have to say, as the person pushing these patches, I’m
uncomfortable with this approach. I don’t think users will like the
results. Basically, do they want to upgrade and run a bunch of untested
integration with known failures? I also don’t want to get this feature
reverted and I’m not exactly sure how this scenario would be taken.

But I hear the point about it not being ideal to abandon the existing
CET userspace. I think there is also a point about how userspace chose
to do this optimistic and early wide enabling, even if it was a bad
idea, and so how much should the kernel try to save userspace from
itself. So what do you think about this instead:

The current psABI spec talks about the binary being compatible with
shadow stack. It doesn’t say much about what should happen after the
loader. Since the greater ecosystem has used this bit with a more
cavalier attitude, glibc could treat it as a request for a warn and
continue mode. In the meantime we could have a new bit shstk_strict,
that requests behavior like these patches implement, and kills the
process on violation. Glibc/tools could add support for this strict bit
and anyone that wants to more carefully compile with it could finally
get shadow stack today. Then the implementation of the warn and
continue mode could follow that, and glibc could map the original shstk
bit to that kernel mode. So the old binaries would get there
eventually, which is better than the continuing nothing they have
today.

And speaking of having nothing today, there are people that really want
to use shadow stack and do not care at all about having CET support for
existing binaries. Neither glibc or elf bits are required to use kernel
shadow stack support. So if it comes to it, I don’t want to hold
support back for other users because the elf note bit enabling path
grew some issues.

Please let me know about what you think of that plan.