linux-hardening - Re: [REGRESSION] 5.16rc1: SA

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 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:   Wed, 17 Nov 2021 17:11:14 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        "Robert O'Callahan" <rocallahan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] 5.16rc1: SA_IMMUTABLE breaks debuggers

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 4:37 PM Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com> wrote:
>
> This fixes most of the issues with rr, but it still changes the ptrace
> behavior for the double-SIGSEGV case

Hmm. I think that's because of how "force_sigsgv()" works.

I absolutely detest that function.

So we have signal_setup_done() doing that

        if (failed)
                force_sigsegv(ksig->sig);

and then force_sigsegv() has that completely insane

        if (sig == SIGSEGV)
                force_fatal_sig(SIGSEGV);
        else
                force_sig(SIGSEGV);

behavior.

And I think I know the _reason_ for that complete insanity: when
SIGSEGV takes a SIGSEGV, and there is a handler, we need to stop
trying to send more SIGSEGV's.

But it does mean that with my change, that second SIGSEGV now ends up
being that SA_IMMUTABLE kind, so yeah, it broke the debugger test -
where catching the second SIGSEGV is actually somewhat sensible (ok,
not really, but at least understandable)

End result: I think we want not a boolean, but a three-way choice for
that force_sig_info_to_task() thing:

 - unconditionally fatal (for things that just want to force an exit
and used to do do_exit())

 - ignore valid and unblocked handler (for that SIGSEGV recursion
case, aka force "sigdfl")

 - catching signal ok

So my one-liner isn't sufficient. It wants some kind of nasty enum.

At least the enum can be entirely internal to kernel/signal.c, I
think. No need to expose this all to anything else.

            Linus