From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <cmarinas@kernel.org>
Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org
 [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE383858416
 for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:54:22 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 3AE383858416
Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95195B81185;
 Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:54:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 977F8C36AE7;
 Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:54:17 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:54:14 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
 Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
 Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
 Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] arm64: Enable BTI for the executable as well as
 the interpreter
Message-ID: <YeWtRk0H30q38eM8@arm.com>
References: <20211115152714.3205552-1-broonie@kernel.org>
 <YbD4LKiaxG2R0XxN@arm.com> <20211209111048.GM3294453@arm.com>
 <YdSEkt72V1oeVx5E@sirena.org.uk>
 <101d8e84-7429-bbf1-0271-5436eca0eea2@arm.com>
 <YdbL5kIzi0xqVTVd@arm.com>
 <8550afd2-268d-a25f-88fd-0dd0b184ca23@arm.com>
 <YdcxUZ06f60UQMKM@arm.com> <Ydc+AuagOD9GSooP@sirena.org.uk>
 <YdgrjWVxRGRtnf5b@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YdgrjWVxRGRtnf5b@arm.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:54:23 -0000

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.

Question for the toolchain people: would the compiler ever generate
relocations in the main executable that the linker needs to resolve via
an mprotect(READ|WRITE) followed by mprotect(READ|EXEC)? If yes, we'd
better go for a proper MDWE implementation in the kernel.

-- 
Catalin