[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49CBB54C.5080201@ct.jp.nec.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:03:08 -0700
From: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, roland@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/signal] x86: signal: check signal stack overflow properly
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/20, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
>> Commit-ID: 14fc9fbc700dc95b4f46ebd588169324fe6deff8
>> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/14fc9fbc700dc95b4f46ebd588169324fe6deff8
>> Author: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>
>> AuthorDate: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:56:29 -0700
>> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>> CommitDate: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:01:31 +0100
>>
>> x86: signal: check signal stack overflow properly
>>
>> Impact: cleanup
>>
>> Check alternate signal stack overflow with proper stack pointer.
>> The stack pointer of the next signal frame is different if that
>> task has i387 state.
>
> I think the patch is correct but I have a minor question,
>
>> No need to check SA_ONSTACK if we're already using alternate signal stack.
>
> Yes, but this also mean that we don't need sas_ss_flags() under
> "if (!onsigstack)",
>
>> @@ -211,31 +211,27 @@ get_sigframe(struct k_sigaction *ka, struct pt_regs *regs, size_t frame_size,
>> {
>> /* Default to using normal stack */
>> unsigned long sp = regs->sp;
>> + int onsigstack = on_sig_stack(sp);
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>> /* redzone */
>> sp -= 128;
>> #endif /* CONFIG_X86_64 */
>>
>> - /*
>> - * If we are on the alternate signal stack and would overflow it, don't.
>> - * Return an always-bogus address instead so we will die with SIGSEGV.
>> - */
>> - if (on_sig_stack(sp) && !likely(on_sig_stack(sp - frame_size)))
>> - return (void __user *) -1L;
>> -
>> - /* This is the X/Open sanctioned signal stack switching. */
>> - if (ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_ONSTACK) {
>> - if (sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0)
>> - sp = current->sas_ss_sp + current->sas_ss_size;
>> - } else {
>> + if (!onsigstack) {
>> + /* This is the X/Open sanctioned signal stack switching. */
>> + if (ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_ONSTACK) {
>> + if (sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0)
>> + sp = current->sas_ss_sp + current->sas_ss_size;
>
> We can use "->sas_ss_size != 0" instead and avoid the unnecessary
> sas_ss_flags()->on_sig_stack() check.
>
> Please note that afaics sas_ss_flags()->on_sig_stack() is actually
> wrong because we already adjusted "sp" above for redzone.
>
> Suppose that on_sig_stack(regs->sp) = F, but "sp - 128" falls into
> the altstack. In that case SA_ONSTACK won't switch the stack.
>
> Of course, this is only theoretical, but still.
Hi Oleg,
Thanks for pointing out it.
I made a patch you suggested.
I haven't tested enough this patch, sorry.
Thanks,
Hiroshi
========
From: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: [PATCH] x86: signal: check sas_ss_size instead of sas_ss_flags()
Impact: fix redundant and incorrect check
Checking on_sig_stack() in sas_ss_flags() at get_sigframe() is redundant
and not correct on 64 bit. To check sas_ss_size is enough.
Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/signal.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
index 62f2164..465b42d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
@@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ get_sigframe(struct k_sigaction *ka, struct pt_regs *regs, size_t frame_size,
if (!onsigstack) {
/* This is the X/Open sanctioned signal stack switching. */
if (ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_ONSTACK) {
- if (sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0)
+ if (current->sas_ss_size)
sp = current->sas_ss_sp + current->sas_ss_size;
} else {
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
--
1.6.1.2
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists