public inbox for libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>,
	GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] nptl: Update struct pthread_unwind_buf
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:46:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOoRWr+bmgdyhiHb9z1jRMgBBovoMd0JeLS0HYpm_RFocQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <90d3ee18-c292-117f-a0c1-7822e340ca02@redhat.com>

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 04:34 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>>> * H. J. Lu:
>>>
>>>>> My proposal is still rather hackish, but so is the existing code (the
>>>>
>>>> A pointer to a buffer in user program is passed to libpthread.
>>>> There is a jmp buf in the buffer followed by other fields.  Since
>>>> the size of jmp buf is increased in glibc 2.28, we need to know the
>>>> offset of other fields. Otherwise libpthread may write beyond the
>>>> buffer in user program.  I don't see how symbol versioning can help
>>>> us here since the INTERNAL libpthread functions don't know the
>>>> layout of __pthread_unwind_buf_t of USER programs.
>>>
>>> I suggest *not* to increase the size of the jump buffer.
>>
>> Where do we save shadow stack pointer?
>
> typedef struct
> {
>   struct
>   {
>     __jmp_buf __cancel_jmp_buf;
>     int __mask_was_saved;
>   } __cancel_jmp_buf[1];
>
>
>   void *__pad[4];
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Save the shadow stack pointer here.
>
>
> } __pthread_unwind_buf_t __attribute__ ((__aligned__));
>
> Save the shadow stack pointer to __pad[4] by making the
> internal sigset_t smaller and moving it down.
>
> The key aspect of Florian's recommendation is a realization
> that a pthread_cleanup_pop can only restore you to the *same*
> function e.g. the earlier pthread_cleanup_push, and therefore
> does not need to change the shadow stack pointer.

PLEASE take a closer look:

Yes, there are

void *__pad[4];

But the name is misleading.   It isn't real padding.  This is
an opaque array:

/* Private data in the cleanup buffer.  */
union pthread_unwind_buf_data
{
  /* This is the placeholder of the public version.  */
  void *pad[4];

  struct
  {
    /* Pointer to the previous cleanup buffer.  */
    struct pthread_unwind_buf *prev;

    /* Backward compatibility: state of the old-style cleanup
       handler at the time of the previous new-style cleanup handler
       installment.  */
    struct _pthread_cleanup_buffer *cleanup;

    /* Cancellation type before the push call.  */
    int canceltype;
  } data;
};

Only the last element in __pad[4] is unused.  There is

---
Note: There is an unused pointer space in pthread_unwind_buf_data.  But
it isn't suitable for saving and restoring shadow stack register since
x32 is a 64-bit process with 32-bit software pointer and kernel may
place x32 shadow stack above 4GB.  We need to save and restore 64-bit
shadow stack register for x32.
---

in my commit log to explain why it isn't suitable for shadow stack.

-- 
H.J.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-24 15:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-01 20:58 H.J. Lu
2018-02-01 20:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] Revert "Revert Intel CET changes to __jmp_buf_tag (Bug 22743)" H.J. Lu
2018-02-01 20:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] nptl: Update struct pthread_unwind_buf [BZ #22743] H.J. Lu
2018-02-08 11:40 ` [PATCH 0/2] nptl: Update struct pthread_unwind_buf Carlos O'Donell
2018-02-08 13:27   ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-09 10:08     ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-02-09 11:13       ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-09 12:34         ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-09 12:42           ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-09 13:07             ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-09 14:33               ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-09 14:56                 ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-09 16:39                   ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-24  5:54               ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-02-24 15:46                 ` H.J. Lu [this message]
2018-02-25  9:26                   ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-25 11:37                     ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-25 12:21                       ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-25 12:53                         ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-25 12:55                           ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-25 12:58                             ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-25 13:23                               ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-25 13:31                                 ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-25 13:36                                   ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-25 13:49                                     ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-25 13:49                                       ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-25 14:00                                         ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-25 14:13                                         ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-25 15:15                                           ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-26  1:06                                             ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-26 12:28                                               ` H.J. Lu
     [not found]                                                 ` <3764b0a1-9f26-6f5f-1bc5-d374f2672f3a@redhat.com>
2018-03-07 11:56                                                   ` H.J. Lu
2018-03-07 17:34                                                     ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-03-07 19:47                                                       ` H.J. Lu
2018-03-07 20:14                                                         ` H.J. Lu
2018-03-07 22:07                                                           ` H.J. Lu
2018-03-08 12:24                                                             ` Tsimbalist, Igor V
2018-03-08 12:48                                                               ` H.J. Lu
2018-03-09  0:47                                                                 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-03-09  5:24                                                                   ` H.J. Lu
2018-03-15  4:21                                                                     ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-02-24 15:20         ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-02-08 17:47   ` H.J. Lu
2018-02-09 10:49     ` Carlos O'Donell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAMe9rOoRWr+bmgdyhiHb9z1jRMgBBovoMd0JeLS0HYpm_RFocQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    --cc=carlos@redhat.com \
    --cc=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).