linux-kernel - Re: sigaltstack breaks swapcontext()

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: <568FBE50.7040504@list.ru>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:49:04 +0300
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sigaltstack breaks swapcontext()

06.01.2016 21:05, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> swapcontext() can be used with signal handlers,
>> it swaps the signal masks together with the other
>> parts of the context.
>> Unfortunately, linux implements the sigaltstack()
>> in a way that makes it impossible to use with
>> swapcontext().
>> Per the man page, sigaltstack is allowed to return
>> EPERM if the process is altering its sigaltstack while
>> running on sigaltstack. This is likely needed to
>> consistently return oss->ss_flags, that indicates
>> whether the process is being on sigaltstack or not.
>> Unfortunately, linux takes that permission to return
>> EPERM too literally: it returns EPERM even if you
>> don't want to change to another sigaltstack, but
>> only want to disable sigaltstack with SS_DISABLE.
>> To my reading of a man page, this is not a desired
>> behaviour. Moreover, you can't use swapcontext()
>> without disabling sigaltstack first, or the stack will
>> be re-used and overwritten by a subsequent signal.
>>
> The EPERM thing is probably also to preserve the behavior that nested
> SA_ONSTACK signals are supposed to work.  (Of course, the kernel gets
> this a bit wrong because it forgets to check ss in addition to sp.
> That would be relatively straightforward to fix.)
I don't think it needs a fix: in 64bit mode SS doesn't matter, and
in 32bit mode the SS is properly restored in a sighandler, so no
one can run sigaltstack() with non-flat SS (unless the DOS code
itself does this, which it does not).