On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:54:12 +0100 Piotr Figiel <fig...@google.com> wrote:
> For userspace checkpoint and restore (C/R) some way of getting process
> state containing RSEQ configuration is needed.
>
> There are two ways this information is going to be used:
> - to re-enable RSEQ for threads which had it enabled before C/R
> - to detect if a thread was in a critical section during C/R
>
> Since C/R preserves TLS memory and addresses RSEQ ABI will be restored
> using the address registered before C/R.
>
> Detection whether the thread is in a critical section during C/R is
> needed to enforce behavior of RSEQ abort during C/R. Attaching with
> ptrace() before registers are dumped itself doesn't cause RSEQ abort.
> Restoring the instruction pointer within the critical section is
> problematic because rseq_cs may get cleared before the control is
> passed to the migrated application code leading to RSEQ invariants not
> being preserved.
>
> To achieve above goals expose the RSEQ structure address and the
> signature value with the new per-thread procfs file "rseq".
Using "/proc/<pid>/rseq" would be more informative.
> fs/exec.c | 2 ++
> fs/proc/base.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/rseq.c | 4 ++++
A Documentation/ update would be appropriate.
> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index 5d4d52039105..5d84f98847f1 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -1830,7 +1830,9 @@ static int bprm_execve(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
> /* execve succeeded */
> current->fs->in_exec = 0;
> current->in_execve = 0;
> + task_lock(current);
> rseq_execve(current);
> + task_unlock(current);
There's a comment over the task_lock() implementation which explains
what things it locks. An update to that would be helpful.
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -662,6 +662,22 @@ static int proc_pid_syscall(struct seq_file *m, struct
> pid_namespace *ns,
>
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RSEQ
> +static int proc_pid_rseq(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> + struct pid *pid, struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + int res = lock_trace(task);
> +
> + if (res)
> + return res;
> + task_lock(task);
> + seq_printf(m, "%px %08x\n", task->rseq, task->rseq_sig);
> + task_unlock(task);
> + unlock_trace(task);
> + return 0;
> +}
Do we actually need task_lock() for this purpose? Would
exec_update_lock() alone be adequate and appropriate?
