From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17EBF3858431 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:24:35 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 17EBF3858431 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 17EBF3858431 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710177876; cv=none; b=nL7oaWfLnm2ECj0VJiUcwKjRsmdxL1qWXwKwS0W+RjkQDzLx0L9GF/P1zGyvaKj/vOPbK/+lX53ctefQ7PxKel8+Ruc5kG4SEk6uClehsHvzBRcVg+yIjmgcIYal0vmfJ8dpfgFB8lgTSzVXEXIlUvidun3C3o9+wFyjU6IVDpU= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710177876; c=relaxed/simple; bh=v6gMLdUiKZZ7RazBMfCfoKiSEmJjr69E7VI4CUgF1ns=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=USSzWgZ61uUCy9lg4rAnNcHdyfnIwQCK4FajqHEMh8DrQVCzVo9NgzBJ6Wm286l8dcaMMOTVgv3vZMKMHUdyZU/COQSqZUWa5PvTM+SKVbcFn+dFeRyELbi5Fsr87ftsKpwnGwu0tCJzMAswTvv+pKkhs8JgzEgBBTBi6A/RSac= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1710177874; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=S/5DNLD1B5FYlv/WQiKkBpjECBxiKeQLXSBp7mPCHGw=; b=W8ynORJD4VLQBTFkkF6s3Rr53lH6xC9ap9c6q6AZsxAGTlQ0XU2V5djQJCIdEhKptdE82h +9WaWUghSfZH+Ge/3+1lgBJY83ktLMdSeaKp/5f3MaN0bT+kOH+iA5kKHT4cPaLERq/RnX orpjziAN8EcvvMqyKO2D9QxRL8444OI= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-175-m2T3uDnyOCKbjTJ2zAb_sQ-1; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:24:16 -0400 X-MC-Unique: m2T3uDnyOCKbjTJ2zAb_sQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1A833C5CF26; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:24:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.78]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4DD53C22; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:24:14 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Adhemerval Zanella Netto Cc: Andreas Schwab , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/32] RELRO linkmaps References: <87bkb2jn79.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <468d5541-9a6e-466a-9392-c18acd92d599@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:24:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: <468d5541-9a6e-466a-9392-c18acd92d599@linaro.org> (Adhemerval Zanella Netto's message of "Fri, 1 Mar 2024 11:45:25 -0300") Message-ID: <87r0gglm0z.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Adhemerval Zanella Netto: > On 07/12/23 07:56, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Andreas Schwab: >> >>> Can you please provide a summary? >> >> The original cover letter is quite elaborate: >> >> >> >> Please let me know if you need something else. > > Also could you describe with more details the possible attack that targets > l_info[DT_FINI] and l_infi[DT_FINI_ARRAY]? I would like to understand > better the attack vector mainly because this patchset re-adds a potential > startup failure (the _dl_protmem_bootstrap) now that we just removed it > from tunable initialization. I think this has some details: Nightmare: One Byte to ROP // Alternate Solution I'm not sure if the first write-up that was shared with me is public. Thanks, Florian