linux-kernel - [PATCH RESEND2 07/11] signals: jffs2: fix the wrong usage of disallow

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: <20140415183659.GA13419@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:36:59 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH RESEND2 07/11] signals: jffs2: fix the wrong usage of
	disallow_signal()

jffs2_garbage_collect_thread() does disallow_signal(SIGHUP) around
jffs2_garbage_collect_pass() and the comment says "We don't want
SIGHUP to interrupt us".

But disallow_signal() can't ensure that jffs2_garbage_collect_pass()
won't be interrupted by SIGHUP, the problem is that SIGHUP can be
already pending when disallow_signal() is called, and in this case
any interruptible sleep won't block.

Note: this is in fact because disallow_signal() is buggy and should
be fixed, see the next changes.

But there is another reason why disallow_signal() is wrong: SIG_IGN
set by disallow_signal() silently discards any SIGHUP which can be
sent before the next allow_signal(SIGHUP).

Change this code to use sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK/SIG_BLOCK, SIGHUP).
This even matches the old (and wrong) semantics allow/disallow had
when this logic was written.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
 fs/jffs2/background.c |   12 +++++++-----
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/jffs2/background.c b/fs/jffs2/background.c
index 2b60ce1..bb9cebc 100644
--- a/fs/jffs2/background.c
+++ b/fs/jffs2/background.c
@@ -75,10 +75,13 @@ void jffs2_stop_garbage_collect_thread(struct jffs2_sb_info *c)
 static int jffs2_garbage_collect_thread(void *_c)
 {
 	struct jffs2_sb_info *c = _c;
+	sigset_t hupmask;
 
+	siginitset(&hupmask, sigmask(SIGHUP));
 	allow_signal(SIGKILL);
 	allow_signal(SIGSTOP);
 	allow_signal(SIGCONT);
+	allow_signal(SIGHUP);
 
 	c->gc_task = current;
 	complete(&c->gc_thread_start);
@@ -87,7 +90,7 @@ static int jffs2_garbage_collect_thread(void *_c)
 
 	set_freezable();
 	for (;;) {
-		allow_signal(SIGHUP);
+		sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &hupmask, NULL);
 	again:
 		spin_lock(&c->erase_completion_lock);
 		if (!jffs2_thread_should_wake(c)) {
@@ -95,10 +98,9 @@ static int jffs2_garbage_collect_thread(void *_c)
 			spin_unlock(&c->erase_completion_lock);
 			jffs2_dbg(1, "%s(): sleeping...\n", __func__);
 			schedule();
-		} else
+		} else {
 			spin_unlock(&c->erase_completion_lock);
-			
-
+		}
 		/* Problem - immediately after bootup, the GCD spends a lot
 		 * of time in places like jffs2_kill_fragtree(); so much so
 		 * that userspace processes (like gdm and X) are starved
@@ -150,7 +152,7 @@ static int jffs2_garbage_collect_thread(void *_c)
 			}
 		}
 		/* We don't want SIGHUP to interrupt us. STOP and KILL are OK though. */
-		disallow_signal(SIGHUP);
+		sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &hupmask, NULL);
 
 		jffs2_dbg(1, "%s(): pass\n", __func__);
 		if (jffs2_garbage_collect_pass(c) == -ENOSPC) {
-- 
1.5.5.1

--
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/