The 10/22/2020 11:17, Topi Miettinen via Libc-alpha wrote:

On 22.10.2020 10.54, Florian Weimer wrote:

quoted

* Lennart Poettering:

quoted

Did you see Topi's comments on the systemd issue?

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/17368#issuecomment-710485532

I think I agree with this: it's a bit weird to alter the bits after
the fact. Can't glibc set up everything right from the begining? That
would keep both concepts working.

The dynamic loader has to process the LOAD segments to get to the ELF
note that says to enable BTI.  Maybe we could do a first pass and load
only the segments that cover notes.  But that requires lots of changes
to generic code in the loader.

What if the loader always enabled BTI for PROT_EXEC pages, but then when
discovering that this was a mistake, mprotect() the pages without BTI? Then
both BTI and MDWX would work and the penalty of not getting MDWX would fall
to non-BTI programs. What's the expected proportion of BTI enabled code vs.
disabled in the future, is it perhaps expected that a distro would enable
the flag globally so eventually only a few legacy programs might be
unprotected?

i thought mprotect(PROT_EXEC) would get filtered
with or without bti, is that not the case?

then i guess we can do the protection that way
around, but then i don't see why the filter cannot
treat PROT_EXEC|PROT_BTI the same as PROT_EXEC.


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel