Re: [PATCH 2/2] rseq: Kill process when unknown flags are encountered in ABI structures
From: Florian Weimer <hidden>
Date: 2022-08-01 14:25:32
* Ingo Molnar:
* Mathieu Desnoyers [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
rseq_abi()->flags and rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->flags 29 upper bits are currently unused. The current behavior when those bits are set is to ignore them. This is not an ideal behavior, because when future features will start using those flags, if user-space fails to correctly validate that the kernel indeed supports those flags (e.g. with a new sys_rseq flags bit) before using them, it may incorrectly assume that the kernel will handle those flags way when in fact those will be silently ignored on older kernels. Validating that unused flags bits are cleared will allow a smoother transition when those flags will start to be used by allowing applications to fail early, and obviously, when they attempt to use the new flags on an older kernel that does not support them. Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> --- kernel/rseq.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/kernel/rseq.c b/kernel/rseq.c index 81d7dc80787b..bda8175f8f99 100644 --- a/kernel/rseq.c +++ b/kernel/rseq.c@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ static int rseq_need_restart(struct task_struct *t, u32 cs_flags) u32 flags, event_mask; int ret; - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cs_flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS)) + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cs_flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS) || cs_flags) return -EINVAL; /* Get thread flags. */@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static int rseq_need_restart(struct task_struct *t, u32 cs_flags) if (ret) return ret; - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS)) + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS) || flags) return -EINVAL;Just to make it clear: no existing libraries/tooling out there have learned to rely on the old ABI that ignored unset flags, right? Only then is this patch ABI-safe.
I believe glibc initializes the flag fields to zero before calling the rseq system call. (I don't know if the rseq system call does its own initialization; maybe it should if it doesn't do so already.) Thanks, Florian