Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.17 02/21] rseq: Introduce restartable sequences system call (v12)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2018-03-29 14:24:13
Also in:
lkml
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:54:01AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Let's say we disallow system calls from rseq critical sections. A few points arise: - We still need to allow traps (page faults, breakpoints, ...) within rseq c.s., - We still need to allow interrupts within rseq c.s.,
Sure, but all those are different entry points, so that shouldn't be a problem.
- We need to decide whether we just document that syscalls within rseq c.s. are not supported, or we enforce a behavior if this happens (e.g. SIGSEGV). If we enforce a SIGSEGV, we'd have to figure out whether it's worth it to add extra branches to the system call fast path to validate this.
Without enforcement someone will eventually do this :/ We might (maybe) get away with it being a debug option somewhere, but even that sounds like trouble.
- We need to carefully consider the case of system calls issued within signal handlers nested on top of rseq. When RSEQ_CS_FLAG_NO_RESTART_ON_SIGNAL is _not_ set, neither in the rseq c.s. descriptor nor in the TLS @flags, it's pretty much straightforward: upon signal delivery, the kernel moves the ip to abort, and clears the tls @rseq_cs pointer. This means that any system call issued within the signal handler is not actually within the rseq c.s. upon which the signal is nested. The case I worry about is if a thread sets the RSEQ_CS_FLAG_NO_RESTART_ON_SIGNAL flag in its TLS @flags field (useful in a debugging scenario where we want a debugger to single-step through the rseq c.s. and observe registers at each step). Arguably, this is only ever used in development. However, it does allow a situation where a system call executed within a signal handler can nest over a rseq c.s.. So if we choose to be very strict and SIGSEGV any syscall nested over rseq c.s., we may very well end up killing the process for no good reason in this scenario.
Yes, that needs a little thought; but when we run the signal handler, the IP would no longer be inside the active RSEQ, right?
- We need to decide whether all syscalls are disallowed, or if we want to pick specific ones (e.g. fork()).
All.