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: <20120429161818.GA15792@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:18:18 +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

First of all, let me repeat I am useless when it comes to the low-level
or asm code. I can be easily wrong, and I am going to ask the questions.

On 04/28, Al Viro wrote:
>
> It's actually worse than I thought - we can't just lift that check
> to do_notify_resume() and be done with that.  Suppose do_signal() does
> get called on e.g. i386 or arm with !user_mode(regs).  What'll happen next?
>
> We have TIF_SIGPENDING set in thread flags - otherwise we wouldn't get
> there at all.  OK, do_signal() doesn't do anything and returns.  So does
> do_notify_resume().  And we are back into the loop in asm glue, rereading
> the thread flags (still unchanged), checking if anything is to be done
> (yes, it is - TIF_SIGPENDING is still set), calling do_notify_resume(),
> ad infinitum.
>
> Lifting the check into do_notify_resume() will not help at all, obviously.
>
> AFAICS we can get hit by that.

Please look at 29a2e2836ff9ea65a603c89df217f4198973a74f
x86-32: Fix endless loop when processing signals for kernel tasks

> At least i386, arm and mips have
> ret_from_fork going straight to "return from syscall" path, no checks for
> return to user mode done.  And process created by kernel_thread() will
> go there.

Looks like, the patch above fixes that.

But, we call do_notify_resume() first, it would be nice to avoid this
and remove the user_mode() check in do_signal() or lift into
do_notify_resume().

> It's a narrow race, but AFAICS it's not impossible to hit -
> guess the PID of kernel thread to be launched, send it a signal and hit
> the moment before it gets to executing the payload.

Yes. But note that the kernel threads run with all signals ignored.

This is still possible, but a kernel thread should do allow_signal()
and then call kernel_thread() (not kthread_create).



Question. So far I know that on x86 do_notify_resume() && !user_mode()
is only possible on 32bit system, and the possible callers are
ret_from_fork or kernel_execve (if it fails).

Plus, perhaps CONFIG_VM86 makes a difference?

Could you please clarify?

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/