linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: mm: abort uaccess retries upon fatal signal

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170711145849.GE13977@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:58:49 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
        james.morse@....com, labbott@...hat.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, steve.capper@....com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, peterz@...radead.org, luto@...capital.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: mm: abort uaccess retries upon fatal signal

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:19:22PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> When there's a fatal signal pending, arm64's do_page_fault()
> implementation returns 0. The intent is that we'll return to the
> faulting userspace instruction, delivering the signal on the way.
> 
> However, if we take a fatal signal during fixing up a uaccess, this
> results in a return to the faulting kernel instruction, which will be
> instantly retried, resulting in the same fault being taken forever. As
> the task never reaches userspace, the signal is not delivered, and the
> task is left unkillable. While the task is stuck in this state, it can
> inhibit the forward progress of the system.
> 
> To avoid this, we must ensure that when a fatal signal is pending, we
> apply any necessary fixup for a faulting kernel instruction. Thus we
> will return to an error path, and it is up to that code to make forward
> progress towards delivering the fatal signal.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>
> Tested-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index 37b95df..3952d5e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -397,8 +397,11 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>  	 * signal first. We do not need to release the mmap_sem because it
>  	 * would already be released in __lock_page_or_retry in mm/filemap.c.
>  	 */
> -	if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) && fatal_signal_pending(current))
> +	if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) && fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> +		if (!user_mode(regs))
> +			goto no_context;
>  		return 0;
> +	}

This will need rebasing at -rc1 (take a look at current HEAD).

Also, I think it introduces a weird corner case where we take a page fault
when writing the signal frame to the user stack to deliver a SIGSEGV. If
we end up with VM_FAULT_RETRY and somebody has sent a SIGKILL to the task,
then we'll fail setup_sigframe and force an un-handleable SIGSEGV instead
of SIGKILL.

The end result (task is killed) is the same, but the fatal signal is wrong.

Will