linux-kernel - Re: [regression] x86/signal/64: Fix SS handling for signals delivered to 64-bit programs breaks dosemu

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, 13 Aug 2015 09:59:42 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [regression] x86/signal/64: Fix SS handling for signals delivered
 to 64-bit programs breaks dosemu

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote:
> 13.08.2015 19:42, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>> 13.08.2015 19:24, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 13.08.2015 19:09, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 13.08.2015 18:38, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So...  what do we do about it?  We could revert the whole mess.  We
>>>>>>>> could tell everyone to fix their DOSEMU, which violates policy and
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> especially annoying given how much effort we've put into keeping
>>>>>>>> 16-bit mode fully functional lately.  We could add yet more
>>>>>>>> heuristics
>>>>>>>> and teach sigreturn to ignore the saved SS value in sigcontext if
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> saved CS is 64-bit and the saved SS is unusable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy, why do you constantly ignore the proposal to make
>>>>>>> new behaviour explicitly controlable? You don't have to agree
>>>>>>> with it, but you could at least comment on that possibility
>>>>>>> and/or mention it with the ones you listed above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what the proposal is exactly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could add a new uc_flags flag.  If set, it means that
>>>>>> sigcontext->ss is valid and should be used by sigreturn.  If clear,
>>>>>> then we ignore sigcontext->ss and just restore __USER_DS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that, by itself, this won't fix old DOSEMU.  We somehow
>>>>>> need to either detect that something funny is going on or just leave
>>>>>> the flag clear by default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could do this: always save SS to sigcontext->ss, but only restore
>>>>>> sigcontext->ss if userspace explicitly sets the flag before sigreturn.
>>>>>> If we do that, we'd need to also add my patch to preserve the actual
>>>>>> HW SS selector if possible so that old DOSEMU knows what SS to program
>>>>>> into its trampoline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This at least lets *new* DOSEMU set the flag and get the improved
>>>>>> behavior.  I still don't know what effect it'll have on Wine and CRIU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stas, is that what you were thinking, or were you thinking of
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite.
>>>>> I mean the flag that will control not only sigreturn, but
>>>>> the signal delivery as well. This may probably be a sigaction()
>>>>> flag or some other. If not set - ss is ignored by both signal
>>>>> delivery and sigreturn(). If set - ss is saved/restored (and in
>>>>> the future - also fs/gs).
>>>>> Is such a flag possible?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe.  I think I'm more nervous about adding new flags in sigaction
>>>> than I am in uc_flags.
>>>
>>> Isn't uc_flags read-only for the user?
>>> I look into setup_rt_frame
>>> <http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?v=2.4.37;i=setup_rt_frame>() and see
>>> ---
>>>   /* Create the ucontext.  */
>>> err |= __put_user(0, &frame->uc.uc_flags);
>>> ---
>>> so it doesn't look like the flag that user can use to _request_
>>> something from the kernel. And I am talking about exactly
>>> the flag to request the new behaviour, as only that can remove
>>> the regression completely without patching dosemu.
>>
>> User code could rewrite it in the signal handler to request something.
>
> But that's too late to affect the signal _delivery_ anyhow, no?
> Any idea about the flag that can control both delivery and return?

I think my LAR patch should cover the signal delivery part.

--Andy
--
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/