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: <20110418134557.GF15951@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:45:57 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <nyoushchenko@...sta.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 5/7] signal: sigprocmask() should do
	retarget_shared_pending()

In short, almost every changing of current->blocked is wrong, or at least
can lead to the unexpected results.

For example. Two threads T1 and T2, T1 sleeps in sigtimedwait/pause/etc.
kill(tgid, SIG) can pick T2 for TIF_SIGPENDING. If T2 calls sigprocmask()
and blocks SIG before it notices the pending signal, nobody else can handle
this pending shared signal.

I am not sure this is bug, but at least this looks strange imho. T1 should
not sleep forever, there is a signal which should wake it up.

This patch moves the code which actually changes ->blocked into the new
helper, set_current_blocked() and changes this code to call
retarget_shared_pending() as exit_signals() does. We should only care about
the signals we just blocked, we use "newset & ~current->blocked" as a mask.

We do not check !sigisemptyset(newblocked), retarget_shared_pending() is
cheap unless mask & shared_pending.

Note: for this particular case we could simply change sigprocmask() to
return -EINTR if signal_pending(), but then we should change other callers
and, more importantly, if we need this fix then set_current_blocked() will
have more callers and some of them can't restart. See the next patch as a
random example.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---

 include/linux/signal.h |    1 +
 kernel/signal.c        |   21 ++++++++++++++++-----
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

--- sigprocmask/include/linux/signal.h~5_sigprocmask_retarget	2011-04-17 22:23:29.000000000 +0200
+++ sigprocmask/include/linux/signal.h	2011-04-17 22:36:41.000000000 +0200
@@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ extern long do_rt_tgsigqueueinfo(pid_t t
 				 siginfo_t *info);
 extern long do_sigpending(void __user *, unsigned long);
 extern int sigprocmask(int, sigset_t *, sigset_t *);
+extern void set_current_blocked(const sigset_t *);
 extern int show_unhandled_signals;
 
 struct pt_regs;
--- sigprocmask/kernel/signal.c~5_sigprocmask_retarget	2011-04-17 22:16:44.000000000 +0200
+++ sigprocmask/kernel/signal.c	2011-04-17 22:32:58.000000000 +0200
@@ -2115,6 +2115,21 @@ long do_no_restart_syscall(struct restar
 	return -EINTR;
 }
 
+void set_current_blocked(const sigset_t *newset)
+{
+	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+
+	spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
+	if (signal_pending(tsk) && !thread_group_empty(tsk)) {
+		sigset_t newblocked;
+		signandsets(&newblocked, newset, &current->blocked);
+		retarget_shared_pending(tsk, &newblocked);
+	}
+	tsk->blocked = *newset;
+	recalc_sigpending();
+	spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
+}
+
 /*
  * This is also useful for kernel threads that want to temporarily
  * (or permanently) block certain signals.
@@ -2146,11 +2161,7 @@ int sigprocmask(int how, sigset_t *set, 
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
-	tsk->blocked = newset;
-	recalc_sigpending();
-	spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
-
+	set_current_blocked(&newset);
 	return 0;
 }
 

--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ