linux-kernel - Re: ERESTARTSYS escaping from sem

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: <92be2ef30910102248t70d5e683tc525580fbf902af1@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:48:59 -0700
From:	Jeremy Leibs <leibs@...lowgarage.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Blaise Gassend <blaise@...lowgarage.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: ERESTARTSYS escaping from sem_wait with RTLinux patch

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> Blaise,
>
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Blaise Gassend wrote:
>> 1) Where is the ERESTARTSYS being prevented from getting to user space?
>>
>> The only likely place I see for preventing ERESTARTSYS from escaping to
>> user space is in arch/*/kernel/signal*.c. However, I don't see how the
>> code there is being called if there no signal pending. Is that a path
>> for ERESTARTSYS to escape from the kernel?
>>
>> The following comment in kernel/futex.h in futex_wait makes me wonder if
>> two threads are getting marked as ERESTARTSYS. The first one to leave
>> the kernel processes the signal and restarts. The second one doesn't
>> have a signal to handle, so it returns to user space without getting
>> into signal*.c and wreaks havoc.
>>
>>     (...)
>>         /*
>>          * We expect signal_pending(current), but another thread may
>>          * have handled it for us already.
>>          */
>>         if (!abs_time)
>>                 return -ERESTARTSYS;
>>     (...)
>
> If the task is woken by a signal, then the task private flag
> TIF_SIGPENDING is set, but in case of a process wide signal the signal
> might have been handled by another thread of the same process before
> that thread reaches the signal handling code, but then ERESTARTSYS is
> handled gracefully. So you seem to trigger a code path which does not
> go through do_signal.
>
>> 2) Why would this be happening only with RT kernels?
>
> Slightly different timing and locking semantics.
>
>> 3) Any suggestions on the best place to patch/workaround this?
>>
>> My understanding is that if I was to treat ERESTARTSYS as an EAGAIN,
>> most applications would be perfectly happy. Would bad things happen if I
>> replaced the ERESTARTSYS in futex_wait with an EAGAIN?
>
> No workarounds please. We really want to know what's wrong.
>
> Two things to look at:
>
> 1) Does that happen with 2.6.31.2-rt13 as well ?
>
> 2) Add a check to the code path where ERESTARTSYS is returned:
>
>   if (!signal_pending(current))
>      printk(KERN_ERR ".....");
>

Ok, in 2.6.31.2-rt13, I modified futex.c as:
-----
        /*
         * We expect signal_pending(current), but another thread may
         * have handled it for us already.
         */
        ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
        if (!abs_time)
          {
            if (!signal_pending(current))
              printk(KERN_ERR ".....");
            goto out_put_key;
          }
-----

Then when I cause the crash:

leibs@c1:~$ python threadprocs8.py
sem_wait: Unknown error 512
Segmentation fault

dmesg shows me the corresponding:
[   82.232999] .....
[   82.233177] python[2834]: segfault at 48 ip 00000000004b0177 sp
00007f9429788ad8 error 4 in python2.6[400000+216000]


--Jeremy
--
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/