Re: Detecting the availability of VSYSCALL

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> On Jun 26, 2019, at 5:12 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> * Andy Lutomirski:
> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:47 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> * Andy Lutomirski:
>>> 
>>>>> We want binaries that run fast on VSYSCALL kernels, but can fall back to
>>>>> full system calls on kernels that do not have them (instead of
>>>>> crashing).
>>>> 
>>>> Define "VSYSCALL kernels."  On any remotely recent kernel (*all* new
>>>> kernels and all kernels for the last several years that haven't
>>>> specifically requested vsyscall=native), using vsyscalls is much, much
>>>> slower than just doing syscalls.  I know a way you can tell whether
>>>> vsyscalls are fast, but it's unreliable, and I'm disinclined to
>>>> suggest it.  There are also at least two pending patch series that
>>>> will interfere.
>>> 
>>> The fast path is for the benefit of the 2.6.32-based kernel in Red Hat
>>> Enterprise Linux 6.  It doesn't have the vsyscall emulation code yet, I
>>> think.
>>> 
>>> My hope is to produce (statically linked) binaries that run as fast on
>>> that kernel as they run today, but can gracefully fall back to something
>>> else on kernels without vsyscall support.
>>> 
>>>>> We could parse the vDSO and prefer the functions found there, but this
>>>>> is for the statically linked case.  We currently do not have a (minimal)
>>>>> dynamic loader there in that version of the code base, so that doesn't
>>>>> really work for us.
>>>> 
>>>> Is anything preventing you from adding a vDSO parser?  I wrote one
>>>> just for this type of use:
>>>> 
>>>> $ wc -l tools/testing/selftests/vDSO/parse_vdso.c
>>>> 269 tools/testing/selftests/vDSO/parse_vdso.c
>>>> 
>>>> (289 lines includes quite a bit of comment.)
>>> 
>>> I'm worried that if I use a custom parser and the binaries start
>>> crashing again because something changed in the kernel (within the scope
>>> permitted by the ELF specification), the kernel won't be fixed.
>>> 
>>> That is, we'd be in exactly the same situation as today.
>> 
>> With my maintainer hat on, the kernel won't do that.  Obviously a
>> review of my parser would be appreciated, but I consider it to be
>> fully supported, just like glibc and musl's parsers are fully
>> supported.  Sadly, I *also* consider the version Go forked for a while
>> (now fixed) to be supported.  Sigh.
> 
> We've been burnt once, otherwise we wouldn't be having this
> conversation.  It's not just what the kernel does by default; if it's
> configurable, it will be disabled by some, and if it's label as
> “security hardening”, the userspace ABI promise is suddenly forgotten
> and it's all userspace's fault for not supporting the new way.
> 
> It looks like parsing the vDSO is the only way forward, and we have to
> move in that direction if we move at all.
> 
> It's tempting to read the machine code on the vsyscall page and analyze
> that, but vsyscall=none behavior changed at one point, and you no longer
> any mapping there at all.  So that doesn't work, either.

It’s worse than that. I have patches to make the vsyscall be execute-only. And the slowly forthcoming CET patches will change the machine code.

> 
> I do hope the next userspace ABI break will have an option to undo it on
> a per-container basis.  Or at least a flag to detect it.
> 

I didn’t add a flag because the vsyscall page was thoroughly obsolete when all this happened, and I wanted to encourage all new code to just parse the vDSO instead of piling on the hacks.

Anyway, you may be the right person to ask: is there some credible way that the kernel could detect new binaries that don’t need vsyscalls?  Maybe a new ELF note on a static binary or on the ELF interpreter? We can dynamically switch it in principle.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux