Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] arm64: Enable BTI for the executable as well as the interpreter

[Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>]

The 01/27/2022 12:24, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> (Mark posted another series but I'm replying here to clarify some
> aspects)
> 
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:02:55AM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > The 01/17/2022 17:54, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 12:01:17PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > I think we can look at this from two angles:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Ignoring MDWE, should whoever does the original mmap() also honour
> > > >    PROT_BTI? We do this for static binaries but, for consistency, should
> > > >    we extend it to dynamic executable?
> > > > 
> > > > 2. A 'simple' fix to allow MDWE together with BTI.
> > > 
> > > Thinking about it, (1) is not that different from the kernel setting
> > > PROT_EXEC on the main executable when the dynamic loader could've done
> > > it as well. There is a case for making this more consistent: whoever
> > > does the mmap() should use the full attributes.
> > 
> > Yeah that was my original idea that it should be consistent.
> > One caveat is that protection flags are normally specified
> > in the program header, but the BTI marking is in
> > PT_GNU_PROPERTY which is harder to get to, so glibc does not
> > try to get it right for the initial mapping either: it has
> > to re-mmap or mprotect. (In principle we could use read
> > syscalls to parse the ELF headers and notes before mmap,
> > but that's more complicated with additional failure modes.)
> > 
> > i.e. if (2) is fixed then mprotect can be used for library
> > mapping too which is simpler than re-mmap.
> 
> I lost track of the userspace fixes here, was glibc changed to attempt a
> re-mmap of the dynamic libraries instead of mprotect()?

yes (so under mdwe, bti is lost on the exe but not on libs)

see the commit message for the fix
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26831

> 
> It looks like (2) is a simpler fix and (1) could still be added for
> consistency, it's complementary.

i agree.

if (2) is fixed then i would change glibc to use
mprotect and handle the failure (this will require an
update to systemd and disabling mdwe on old kernels)

if (1) is fixed then i would probably still keep
doing mprotect on the main exe so bti protection
works on old kernels.