Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1629722
| From | Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation |
| Date | 2017-04-24 18:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tzOIO-JE-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <txENB-le-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <txHBM-22s-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <txVbI-2kv-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <tzOps-mK-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <tzOz7-q9-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:58:41PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:40:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:33:14AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 09:01:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > > On 18 April 2017 at 18:01, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:33:52PM +0800, dongbo (E) wrote: > > > > >> From: Dong Bo <dongbo4@huawei.com> > > > > >> > > > > >> In load_elf_binary(), once the READ_IMPLIES_EXEC flag is set, > > > > >> the flag is propagated to its child processes, even the elf > > > > >> files are marked as not requiring executable stack. It may > > > > >> cause superfluous operations on some arch, e.g. > > > > >> __sync_icache_dcache on aarch64 due to a PROT_READ mmap is > > > > >> also marked as PROT_EXEC. > > > > > > > > > That's affecting most architectures with a risk of ABI breakage. We > > > > > could do it on arm64 only, though I'm not yet clear on the ABI > > > > > implications (at a first look, there shouldn't be any). > > > > > > > > Is there a reason why it isn't just straightforwardly a bug > > > > (which we could fix) to make READ_IMPLIES_EXEC propagate to > > > > child processes? > > > > > > While I agree that it looks like a bug, if there are user programs > > > relying on such bug we call it "ABI". On arm64, I don't think there is > > > anything relying on inheriting READ_IMPLIES_EXEC but I wouldn't change > > > the compat task handling without the corresponding change in arch/arm. > > > > > > > AFAICT this should be per-process: just because > > > > init happens not to have been (re)compiled to permit non-executable > > > > stacks doesn't mean every process on the system needs to have > > > > an executable stack. > > > > > > I think this also affects the heap if brk(2) is used (via > > > VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS though I guess malloc mostly uses mmap these > > > days). > > > > I think it also affects mprotect, which is more worrying imo, particularly > > for things like JIT code that is ported from 32-bit (although a quick look > > at v8, ionmonkey and art suggests they all pass PROT_EXEC when needed). > > As Peter said, the default behaviour is READ_IMPLIES_EXEC off, so JIT > code must already pass PROT_EXEC if it wants executable permission. The > question is whether any user code relies on READ_IMPLIES_EXEC being > passed down to child processes. I don't think so but I would be > reluctant to make an such cross-arch change (happy to do it for arm64 > though). I was thinking of the case where init has an executable stack, but that's not the common case and such code would be broken under a different init anyway, so I agree that we should make this change for arm64 (but not compat without arch/arm/). Will
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation "dongbo (E)" <dongbo4@huawei.com> - 2017-04-13 14:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2017-04-18 19:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> - 2017-04-18 22:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2017-04-19 12:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> - 2017-04-19 12:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation "dongbo (E)" <dongbo4@huawei.com> - 2017-04-20 06:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-04-24 17:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2017-04-24 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-04-24 18:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2017-04-24 18:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation "dongbo (E)" <dongbo4@huawei.com> - 2017-04-25 09:10 +0200
[PATCH REPOST] fs: Preventing READ_IMPLIES_EXEC Propagation "dongbo (E)" <dongbo4@huawei.com> - 2017-04-25 09:00 +0200
csiph-web