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 12:01:42 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [regression] x86/signal/64: Fix SS handling for signals delivered
 to 64-bit programs breaks dosemu

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote:
> 13.08.2015 21:35, Linus Torvalds пишет:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Linus, I verified that patch-minimal.diff is enough
>>> to fix the problem, BUT! dosemu is in fact using the .fs and
>>> .gs fields of sigcontext as a placeholders. Why the minimal
>>> patch alone helps is simply because the kernel headers
>>> installed in a system do not yet represent the newer kernel
>>> developments and have the .fs and .gs fields in.
>>
>> Ok. So I'm inclined to do the bigger revert, just to fix the compile
>> issue. It would be crazy to force some silly autoconf script for
>> random header info.
>
> But OTOH these fields already lost their meaning.
> It may make sense to force people to stop using them,
> in case you ever want to re-use them again in the future.
> From what Andy says, it seems there are the distant plans
> to start restoring FS again. If people still use sigcontext.fs
> by that time, you'll get problems. If you force everyone to
> stop using them - you'll be safe.

There are distant plans to think about restoring them, at least.  But
it's not just FS -- it's FSBASE as well, and that's not going to fit
in the same slot.  And we still don't get to break old DOSEMU versions
(knowingly, anyway).

>
> In fact, I think the "silly autoconf script" you mentioned above,
> should indeed be reverted, and instead I should use
> sigcontext.reserved1[8] array to store FS/GS? Is this
> safer against ever re-using this space? Not sure...

Honestly, I'd just save it somewhere outside sigcontext.  If it's
application data, treat it as such.  OTOH, if you've already been
saving it in the old FS/GS slots, I see no great reason to change it.

--Andy


-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/