linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix delayed signals

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0807101459000.2936@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix delayed signals



On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Roland McGrath wrote:
> 
> There are many different scenarios that could hit this bug, most of
> them races.  The simplest one to demonstrate does not require any
> race: when one signal has done handler setup at the check before
> returning from a syscall, and there is another signal pending that
> should be handled.  The second signal's handler should interrupt the
> first signal handler before it actually starts (so the interrupted PC
> is still at the handler's entry point).  Instead, it runs away until
> the next kernel entry (next syscall, tick, etc).

I have this dim memory of at least _some_ of this being on purpose.

If you look at old kernels (_really_ old ones - I think it's way before 
even the historical git archive, but I didn't take a look), we used to set 
up several stack frames at once, so that we'd nest the stack frames 
completely.

In other words, the code in do_signal() used to literally be a loop, 
something like

	while ((signr = get_signal_to_deliver(&info, &ka, regs, NULL)) > 0) {
		.. setup signal frame ..

(No, I don't think that's at all accurate of the actual code we used to 
have - I just took the current do_signal() code as an example)

And that explicit loop was removed in order for us to have just a single 
outstanding signal at a time. I forget the exact details why.

But if you really want that behaviour, then re-introducing the loop would 
likely be the better approach (or should be combined), since I think you 
effectively just re-introduced it (at a much bigger granularity).

Hmm.

		Linus
--
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/