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]
Date:	Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:46:15 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Dmitry ADAMUSHKA (EXT)" <dmitry.adamushka_ext@...tathome.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	wouter.cloetens@...tathome.com,
	dmitry adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 'khelper' (child) is stuck in endless loop: do_signal() and
	!user_mode(regs)

Hi Dmitry,

I can't read this email carefully now, will do tomorrow.

But,

On 03/07, Dmitry ADAMUSHKA (EXT) wrote:
>
> Now, the assumptions (the question is whether these are true for the recent kernels):
>
> 1) TIF_SIGPENDING can be set for 'khelper' while it's running in ____call_usermodehelper()
>    between (a) flush_signal_handlers() and (b) kernel_execve() => so TIF_SIGPENDING is set;

Yes, but it is not khelper. It is another kernel thread. Yes, its
->comm[] was copied from parent, so ps/etc can show it as khelper.

> 2) kernel_execve() can fail in ____call_usermodehelper().
>
> The later one is less of an assumption; let's say, it fails due to a shortage of memory (or whatever).
>
> If (1) is true, then
>
> the pre-conditions:
>
> - a kernel space task;
>
> 'khelper' running ____call_usermodehelper() in our case.
>
> - TIF_SIGPENDING is set.
>
> A signal has been delivered, say, as a result of kill(-1, SIGKILL).
>
> The endless loop is as follows:
>
> * syscall_exit_work:
>  - work_pending:            // start_of_the_loop

We shouldn't be here. This is the kernel thread.

And if start_thread() was already called, then

>  - work_notify_sig:
>    - do_notify_resume()
>      - do_signal()          ==> if (!user_mode(regs)) return; so signals are not handled

user_mode() is no longer true.

Once again, I can be wrong, I'll read this email tomorrow.

Oleg.

--
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