Worth using personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) for EXEC_BACKEND on linux?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Worth using personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) for EXEC_BACKEND on linux?
Date: 2021-08-06 03:29:44
Message-ID: 20210806032944.m4tz7j2w47mant26@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

When testing EXEC_BACKEND on linux I see occasional test failures as long as I
don't disable ASLR. There's a code comment to that effect:

* If testing EXEC_BACKEND on Linux, you should run this as root before
* starting the postmaster:
*
* echo 0 >/proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space

but I don't like doing that on a system wide basis.

Linux allows disabling ASLR on a per-process basis using
personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE). There's a wrapper binary to do that as well,
setarch --addr-no-randomize.

I was wondering if we should have postmaster do personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE)
for EXEC_BACKEND builds? It seems nicer to make it automatically work than
have people remember that they need to call "setarch --addr-no-randomize make check".

Not that it actually matters for EXEC_BACKEND, but theoretically doing
personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) in postmaster is a tad more secure than doing
it via setarch, as in the personality() case postmaster's layout itself is
still randomized...

Or perhaps we should just add a comment mentioning setarch.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yura Sokolov 2021-08-06 03:43:55 Re: RFC: Improve CPU cache locality of syscache searches
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-08-06 02:58:04 Re: Numeric x^y for negative x