linux-kernel - [34-longterm 208/209] Relax si_code check in rt_sigqueueinfo and rt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:56:06 -0400
From:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
To:	stable@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	stable-review@...nel.org, Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: [34-longterm 208/209] Relax si_code check in rt_sigqueueinfo and rt_tgsigqueueinfo

From: Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>

  =====================================================================
  | This is a commit scheduled for the next v2.6.34 longterm release. |
  | If you see a problem with using this for longterm, please comment.|
  =====================================================================

commit 243b422af9ea9af4ead07a8ad54c90d4f9b6081a upstream.

Commit da48524eb206 ("Prevent rt_sigqueueinfo and rt_tgsigqueueinfo
from spoofing the signal code") made the check on si_code too strict.
There are several legitimate places where glibc wants to queue a
negative si_code different from SI_QUEUE:

 - This was first noticed with glibc's aio implementation, which wants
   to queue a signal with si_code SI_ASYNCIO; the current kernel
   causes glibc's tst-aio4 test to fail because rt_sigqueueinfo()
   fails with EPERM.

 - Further examination of the glibc source shows that getaddrinfo_a()
   wants to use SI_ASYNCNL (which the kernel does not even define).
   The timer_create() fallback code wants to queue signals with SI_TIMER.

As suggested by Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, loosen the check to
forbid only the problematic SI_TKILL case.

Reported-by: Klaus Dittrich <kladit@...or.de>
Acked-by: Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
---
 kernel/signal.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 704c030..137a333 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -2411,7 +2411,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(rt_sigqueueinfo, pid_t, pid, int, sig,
 	/* Not even root can pretend to send signals from the kernel.
 	 * Nor can they impersonate a kill()/tgkill(), which adds source info.
 	 */
-	if (info.si_code != SI_QUEUE) {
+	if (info.si_code >= 0 || info.si_code == SI_TKILL) {
 		/* We used to allow any < 0 si_code */
 		WARN_ON_ONCE(info.si_code < 0);
 		return -EPERM;
@@ -2431,7 +2431,7 @@ long do_rt_tgsigqueueinfo(pid_t tgid, pid_t pid, int sig, siginfo_t *info)
 	/* Not even root can pretend to send signals from the kernel.
 	 * Nor can they impersonate a kill()/tgkill(), which adds source info.
 	 */
-	if (info->si_code != SI_QUEUE) {
+	if (info->si_code >= 0 || info->si_code == SI_TKILL) {
 		/* We used to allow any < 0 si_code */
 		WARN_ON_ONCE(info->si_code < 0);
 		return -EPERM;
-- 
1.7.4.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/