On 8/4/26 1:49 PM, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
On Tue, 2026-08-04 at 13:23 -0500, Bill Roberts wrote:
When they add unlock to the generic interface, then that will be the
time to rectify that. Just looking
through patches and stuff, I think that side is still in flight, eg
https://lkml.org/lkml/2026/4/3/1651.
This looks like it is about clearing lock bits after exec. What I am talking
about is "PTRACE_ARCH_PRCTL". It's a special ptrace capability that only can
poke at arch_prtcl and not regular prctl.
Ahh, Ok thanks for clarifying that.
It also looks like the model is slightly different, in that there is a
window when all of this should be
handled, and then locked permanently. I know on our side of the house,
locking isn't really being
used yet. But that's criu, right now, the main things I would like to
coalesce is libc's.
IIRC CRIU needed to unlock shadow stack during the save. Because it's tricks for
saving the process involved messing with the stack. So it needs to be able to
unlock but *only* via ptrace. Apps cannot be allowed to unlock themselves.
Because, well, obviously..
As MUSL and
others get patches, it would be much simpler to have one interface to do
this in, and right now
unlock is unused (even in the test suite :-p).
I think I raised this on the other arch's APIs originally. x86 went first, and
then later arm/riscv wanted a unified approach, but didn't solve this ptrace
unlock part. So we didn't join. AFAICT the situation hasn't changed. So I'm
worried it's too soon to unify. Or we might need to do multiple steps of
unifications.
At this point, the only remaining semantic difference is support for
unlocking
a locked shadow stack during ptrace/CRIU restore. Arm64 and RISC-V don't
currently expose a generic unlock operation because they use
architecture-specific
ptrace mechanisms for state restoration. If those architectures
eventually converge
on a common unlock model for CRIU, I think it would make sense to unify that
interface as well. Until then, I don't think the lack of a generic
unlock should prevent
unifying the parts of the ABI that already have equivalent semantics.
Especially
considering how it unifies the loader/libc side of the house.
Also looking forward to understanding the security module problem
statement better.
Right now all the controls are opt in, and requires support in glibc, via
per arch tunable flags for both enabling and locking. The glibc folks are
starting to balk at the amount of flags. Additionally, it would be nice to
have MAC controls on them, and the best way for that is via LSM into
SE Linux. Normal applications can be placed in a domain where
they can never remove protections, and things like CRIU will have these
elevated
perms, if they are ever needed, since right now they go through a
different channel.
The LSM actually removes the need for lock flags in essence, but yeah we
can't count
on that. The lore is here:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2025-December/173636.html
For the following LSM piece, there is no hard dependency on this. I can
put the LSM hooks into arch_prctl
for x86 and things would work fine, in fact there is no getting around
that or the arch_prctl
interface for x86 wouldn't get the LSM protections. I want x86 to get
the LSM protections. I
also want to coalesce what we can around the around the current generic
interfaces for glibc.
Work could be done there to start dropping arch tunables around this
too. I am sitting on these
patches right now, because they have a soft dependency on conflicts.
Ill spin out a v2 with the comments, but the one thing left to be
addressed, afaik, is the testing patch
do you want that? I'll drop it, but I think that's a bad approach.
Yea, I hear your point. It is good to test more, but #including c files with
pre-processor switches seems too hacky. Is there anything we could do to make it
in one c file? Like not the templated tricks to generate two test binaries? For
example embed the switch between the two APIs in a macros in the single file.
Like say we have SHSTK_ENABLE(). Inside it does either ARCH_PRCTL() or regular.
Then have a global or something that switches between the two behaviors. Pull
out the parts in main() into something that could be run twice?
Anything is possible, but is the juice worth the squeeze here? This
approach is used
already in tree:
- bpf/progs/arena_htab_asm.c
- bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_subprogs.c
- bpf/progs/test_sk_assign_libbpf.c
- kvm/lib/rbtree.c
- kvm/rseq_test.c
- livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_state3.c
- powerpc/vphn/test-vphn.c
- x86/test_shadow_stack_prctl.c
I am generally a fan of doing the simplest, most obvious thing first
that follows existing conventions
unless a really big reason can be made to not do it. I can refactor it
if it's a show stopper, but IMHO
not worth it here. But if you want it refactored, sure.
