lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: rseq/x86: choosing rseq code signature
----- On Apr 9, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We are about to include the code signature required prior to restartable
> sequences abort handlers into glibc, which will make this ABI choice final.
> We need architecture maintainer input on that signature value.
>
> That code signature is placed before each abort handler, so the kernel can
> validate that it is indeed jumping to an abort handler (and not some
> arbitrary attacker-chosen code). The signature is never executed.
>
> Currently, tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-x86.h defines RSEQ_SIG
> as 0x53053053, and uses it as an immediate operand to the following
> instruction opcodes (as suggested by Andy Lutomirski):
>
> x86-32:
> - .byte 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x05: nopl <sig>
>
> x86-64:
> - .byte 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x05: nopl <sig>(%rip)
>
> The current discussion thread on the glibc mailing list leads us towards
> using a trap with uncommon immediate operand, which simplifies integration
> with disassemblers, emulators, makes it easier to debug if the control
> flow gets redirected there by mistake, and is nicer for some architecture's
> speculative execution.
>
> The main advantage of choosing a trap instruction over a no-op is to ensure the
> program traps if the execution flow gets redirected to the signature by mistake
> (makes it easier to debug). It's not a hard requirement, but it would be a
> bonus.
>
> Are there trap instructions that take an uncommon 4-byte immediate
> operand you would recommend on x86 32/64 ? Or is the current choice of
> nopl confirmed to be right one ?
>
> Here is an example of rseq signature definition template:
>
> /*
> * TODO: document trap instruction objdump output on each sub-architecture
> * instruction sets, as well as instruction set extensions.
> */
> #define RSEQ_SIG 0x########

Peter Zijlstra suggested to use "invlpg" in user-space, which should generate
a trap. The only concern would be emulators, but ideally they would not try to
decode an instruction that is never executed. This would lead to the following
patch. Any objections/ack ?


diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-x86.h b/tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-x86.h
index 2d4887b5d3f0..e9c8a9879e18 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-x86.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-x86.h
@@ -7,6 +7,11 @@

#include <stdint.h>

+/*
+ * RSEQ_SIG is used with the following privileged instructions, which trap in user-space:
+ * x86-32: 0f 01 3d 53 30 05 53 invlpg 0x53053053
+ * x86-64: 0f 01 3d 53 30 05 53 invlpg 0x53053053(%rip)
+ */
#define RSEQ_SIG 0x53053053

#ifdef __x86_64__
@@ -78,8 +83,8 @@ do { \

#define RSEQ_ASM_DEFINE_ABORT(label, teardown, abort_label) \
".pushsection __rseq_failure, \"ax\"\n\t" \
- /* Disassembler-friendly signature: nopl <sig>(%rip). */\
- ".byte 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x05\n\t" \
+ /* Disassembler-friendly signature: invlpg <sig>(%rip). */\
+ ".byte 0x0f, 0x01, 0x3d\n\t" \
".long " __rseq_str(RSEQ_SIG) "\n\t" \
__rseq_str(label) ":\n\t" \
teardown \
@@ -605,8 +610,8 @@ do { \

#define RSEQ_ASM_DEFINE_ABORT(label, teardown, abort_label) \
".pushsection __rseq_failure, \"ax\"\n\t" \
- /* Disassembler-friendly signature: nopl <sig>. */ \
- ".byte 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x05\n\t" \
+ /* Disassembler-friendly signature: invlpg <sig>. */ \
+ ".byte 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x3d\n\t" \
".long " __rseq_str(RSEQ_SIG) "\n\t" \
__rseq_str(label) ":\n\t" \
teardown \

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-09 22:45    [W:0.109 / U:5.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site