[PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Enable BTI for the executable as well as the interpreter

[Dave Martin]

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 11:28:12AM -0500, Jeremy Linton via Libc-alpha wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 6/4/21 6:24 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >Deployments of BTI on arm64 have run into issues interacting with
> >systemd's MemoryDenyWriteExecute feature.  Currently for dynamically
> >linked executables the kernel will only handle architecture specific
> >properties like BTI for the interpreter, the expectation is that the
> >interpreter will then handle any properties on the main executable.
> >For BTI this means remapping the executable segments PROT_EXEC |
> >PROT_BTI.
> >
> >This interacts poorly with MemoryDenyWriteExecute since that is
> >implemented using a seccomp filter which prevents setting PROT_EXEC on
> >already mapped memory and lacks the context to be able to detect that
> >memory is already mapped with PROT_EXEC.  This series resolves this by
> >handling the BTI property for both the interpreter and the main
> >executable.
> 
> I've got a Fedora34 system booting in qemu or a model with BTI enabled. On
> that system I took the systemd-resolved executable, which is one of the
> services with MDWE enabled, and replaced a number of the bti's with nops. I
> expect the service to continue to work with the fedora or mainline 5.13
> kernel and it does. If instead I boot with MDWE=no for the service, it
> should fail to start given either of those kernels, and it does.
> 
> Thus, I expect that with his patch applied to 5.13 the service will fail to
> start regardless of the state of MDWE, but it seems to continue starting
> when I set MDWE=yes. Same behavior with v1 FWTW.
> 
> Of course, there is a good chance I've messed something up or i'm missing
> something. I should really validate the /lib/ld-linux behavior itself too. I
> guess this could just as well be a glibc issue (f34 has glibc 2.33-5 which
> appears to have the re-mmap on failure patch). Either way, systemd-resolved
> is a LSB PIE, with /lib/ld-linux as its interpreter. I've not dug too deep
> into debugging this, cause I've got a couple other things I need to deal
> with in the next couple days, and I strongly dislike booting a full
> debug+system on the model. chuckle, sorry...

[...]

If the failure we're trying to detect is that BTI is undesirably left
off for the main executable, surely replacing BTIs with NOPs will make
no differenece?  The behaviour with PROT_BTI clear is strictly more
permissive than with PROT_BTI set, so I'm not sure we can test the
behaviour this way.

Maybe I'm missing sometihng / confused myself somewhere.

Looking at /proc/<pid>/maps after the process starts up may be a more
reliable approach, so see what the actual prot value is on the main
executable's text pages.

Cheers
---Dave