Conversation

FFS Linux *please* stop hiding features behind CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE just because checkpoint/restore migration is *one* possible usage case for them!!!

Quote Tweet

Rich Felker

@RichFelker

May 16, 2020

Uhg it's not CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SOFT_DIRTY but CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY, and the latter is hidden behind CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE like lots of other useful stuff for no legitimate reason.

Show this thread

Daniel Micay

@DanielMicay

Replying to

@RichFelker

I hate checkpoint restore... they exposed so many things that were never designed or intended to be part of the public API. It's now used as a justification to avoid fixing tons of security issues and API design flaws. It was the blocker for mitigating en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigreturn. :(

en.wikipedia.org

Sigreturn-oriented programming - Wikipedia

6:52 AM · May 16, 2020Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

IIRC,

made an SROP patch for the Linux kernel and CRIU is what blocked it from landing. They made a ton of stuff part of the public ABI without really asking anyone or going through a design process for it. It doesn't even work properly...

Replying to

and

FWIW, I'm not sure exactly what "SROP mitigation" would look like but I suspect it would break other valid things like sigreturn-based ucontext API implementation (IIRC this is used by glibc on one or more archs, and is a good choice of implementation).

Show replies