linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, arch/*/*/*signal*.c and all such

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: <20120426183742.GA324@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:37:42 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, arch/*/*/*signal*.c and all such

On 04/24, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Untested variants pushed into signal.git#master; will test tomorrow.  In
> the meanwhile, any code review (and testing of the entire thing on as many
> targets as possible) would be very welcome.

I started to read these patches today, will continue tomorrow. Somehow
I got stuck at f1fcb14721b4f1e65387d4563311f15f0bd33684, please see the
question below. And a couple of minor nits.

b4b620b87fd2f388cf4c13fea21f31bed7c9a1b0 new helper: sigsuspend()

Looks obviously correct but I do not understand this chunk in kernel.c,

	+ #ifndef __ARCH_HAS_SYS_RT_SIGSUSPEND
	+ /**
	+  *  sys_rt_sigsuspend - replace the signal mask for a value with the
	+
	 #ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_RT_SIGSUSPEND

So this checks the (never used/defined?) __ARCH_HAS_SYS_RT_SIGSUSPEND
but comments out __ARCH_WANT_SYS_RT_SIGSUSPEND. Looks like a typo.

6b78370886e4f61187404b7737a831281bde35e8 xtensa: switch to generic rt_sigsuspend(2)
and
d978bf9dd41728dd60fe2269493fe8f21d28eef3 h8300: switch to saved_sigmask-based sigsuspend/rt_sigsuspend

(off-topic, but do_signal()->try_to_freeze() looks unneeded and wrong)

	+       /* If there's no signal to deliver, we just restore the saved mask.  */
	+       if (test_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK)) {
	+               clear_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK);
	+               sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &current->saved_sigmask, NULL);
			^^^^^^^^^^^

set_current_blocked(&current->saved_sigmask) looks better.

f1fcb14721b4f1e65387d4563311f15f0bd33684 alpha: tidy signal delivery up

Everything looks fine, but I have the off-topic question. The changelog
says:

	* checking for TIF_SIGPENDING is enough; set_restart_sigmask() sets this
	one as well.

Agreed, but why set_restore_sigmask() sets TIF_SIGPENDING? It should be
never used without signal_pending() == T.

IOW, do you know a reason why this patch

	--- x/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
	+++ x/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
	@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ static inline void set_restore_sigmask(v
	 {
		struct thread_info *ti = current_thread_info();
		ti->status |= TS_RESTORE_SIGMASK;
	-	set_bit(TIF_SIGPENDING, (unsigned long *)&ti->flags);
	+	WARN_ON(!test_bit(TIF_SIGPENDING, (unsigned long *)&ti->flags));
	 }

	 static inline bool is_ia32_task(void)

is not correct?

OK, say, sys_sigsuspend() does

	current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
	schedule();
	set_restore_sigmask();
	return -ERESTARTNOHAND;

so set_bit(TIF_SIGPENDING) saves us from the "spurious wakeup". But is
it really possible?

We had the bugs in ptrace some time ago (and iirc this is why sys_pause
checks signal_pending), but is there any reason today why the
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE task can return from schedule() without SIGPENDING?
(of course, ignoring the case when this task was added to some
 wait_queue_head_t).

I am just curious. Perhaps set_restore_sigmask() sets SIGPENDING just
to be safer, but otoh this can hide the problem.

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/