linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86_64,signal: Fix SS handling for signals delivered to 64-bit programs

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, 11 Mar 2015 09:31:31 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86_64,signal: Fix SS handling for signals
 delivered to 64-bit programs

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 07:03:24AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> The comment in the signal code says that apps can save/restore other
> segments on their own.  It's true that apps can *save* SS on their
> own, but there's no way for apps to restore it: SYSCALL effectively
> resets SS to __USER_DS, so any value that user code tries to load
> into SS gets lost on entry to sigreturn.
> 
> This recycles two padding bytes in the segment selector area for SS.
> 
> While we're at it, we need a second change to make this useful.  If
> the signal we're delivering is caused by a bad SS value, saving that
> value isn't enough.  We need to remove that bad value from the regs
> before we try to deliver the signal.  Oddly, x32 already got this
> right.

Are we at least reporting the bad SS value when delivering the signal so
that userpsace knows why it got the signal?

> I suspect that 64-bit programs that try to run 16-bit code and uses
> signals will have a lot of trouble without this.

Do we even have software doing that? Maybe we should search for similar
bug reports...

> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/sigcontext.h      |  2 +-
>  arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h |  2 +-
>  arch/x86/kernel/signal.c               | 20 +++++++++++---------
>  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/sigcontext.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/sigcontext.h
> index 9dfce4e0417d..f910cdcb71fd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/sigcontext.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/sigcontext.h
> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ struct sigcontext {
>  	unsigned short cs;
>  	unsigned short gs;
>  	unsigned short fs;
> -	unsigned short __pad0;

This __pad0 thing has been there since the beginning, according to my
git history dive.

> +	unsigned short ss;
>  	unsigned long err;
>  	unsigned long trapno;
>  	unsigned long oldmask;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
> index d8b9f9081e86..076b11fd6fa1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
> @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ struct sigcontext {
>  	__u16 cs;
>  	__u16 gs;
>  	__u16 fs;
> -	__u16 __pad0;
> +	__u16 ss;
>  	__u64 err;
>  	__u64 trapno;
>  	__u64 oldmask;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> index ed37a768d0fc..40f34574fb36 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -94,15 +94,8 @@ int restore_sigcontext(struct pt_regs *regs, struct sigcontext __user *sc,
>  		COPY(r15);
>  #endif /* CONFIG_X86_64 */
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>  		COPY_SEG_CPL3(cs);
>  		COPY_SEG_CPL3(ss);
> -#else /* !CONFIG_X86_32 */
> -		/* Kernel saves and restores only the CS segment register on signals,
> -		 * which is the bare minimum needed to allow mixed 32/64-bit code.
> -		 * App's signal handler can save/restore other segments if needed. */
> -		COPY_SEG_CPL3(cs);
> -#endif /* CONFIG_X86_32 */
>  
>  		get_user_ex(tmpflags, &sc->flags);
>  		regs->flags = (regs->flags & ~FIX_EFLAGS) | (tmpflags & FIX_EFLAGS);
> @@ -164,6 +157,7 @@ int setup_sigcontext(struct sigcontext __user *sc, void __user *fpstate,
>  		put_user_ex(regs->cs, &sc->cs);
>  		put_user_ex(0, &sc->gs);
>  		put_user_ex(0, &sc->fs);
> +		put_user_ex(regs->ss, &sc->ss);
>  #endif /* CONFIG_X86_32 */
>  
>  		put_user_ex(fpstate, &sc->fpstate);
> @@ -457,9 +451,17 @@ static int __setup_rt_frame(int sig, struct ksignal *ksig,
>  
>  	regs->sp = (unsigned long)frame;
>  
> -	/* Set up the CS register to run signal handlers in 64-bit mode,
> -	   even if the handler happens to be interrupting 32-bit code. */
> +	/* Set up the CS and SS registers to run signal handlers in
> +	   64-bit mode, even if the handler happens to be interrupting
> +	   32-bit or 16-bit code.
> +
> +	   SS is subtle.  In 64-bit mode, we don't need any particular
> +	   SS descriptor, but we do need SS to be valid.  It's possible
> +	   that the old SS is entirely bogus -- this can happen if the
> +	   signal we're trying to deliver is #GP or #SS caused by a bad
> +	   SS value. */

Kernel comment style please:

	/*
	 * Andy likes to go and play 16-bit games on 64-bit linux. We all are
	 * having lotsa fun.
	 */

:-D

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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/