linux-kernel - [PATCH 3/7] signal/sparc: Document a conflict with SI

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:   Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:06:47 -0500
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/7] signal/sparc: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE

Setting si_code to __SI_FAULT results in a userspace seeing
an si_code of 0.  This is the same si_code as SI_USER.  Posix
and common sense requires that SI_USER not be a signal specific
si_code.  As such this use of 0 for the si_code is a pretty
horribly broken ABI.

This was introduced in 2.3.41 so this mess has had a long time for
people to be able to start depending on it.

As this bug has existed for 17 years already I don't know if it is
worth fixing.  It is definitely worth documenting what is going
on so that no one decides to copy this bad decision.

Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
---
 arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h | 7 +++++++
 arch/sparc/kernel/traps_32.c          | 2 +-
 arch/sparc/kernel/traps_64.c          | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h b/arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h
index 2d9b79ccaa50..da2126e0c536 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h
+++ b/arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h
@@ -17,6 +17,13 @@
 #define SI_NOINFO	32767		/* no information in siginfo_t */
 
 /*
+ * SIGFPE si_codes
+ */
+#ifdef __KERNEL__
+#define FPE_FIXME	(__SI_FAULT|0)	/* Broken dup of SI_USER */
+#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
+
+/*
  * SIGEMT si_codes
  */
 #define EMT_TAGOVF	(__SI_FAULT|1)	/* tag overflow */
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/traps_32.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/traps_32.c
index 466d4aed06c7..581cf35ee7e3 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/traps_32.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/traps_32.c
@@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ void do_fpe_trap(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long pc, unsigned long npc,
 	info.si_errno = 0;
 	info.si_addr = (void __user *)pc;
 	info.si_trapno = 0;
-	info.si_code = __SI_FAULT;
+	info.si_code = FPE_FIXME;
 	if ((fsr & 0x1c000) == (1 << 14)) {
 		if (fsr & 0x10)
 			info.si_code = FPE_FLTINV;
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/traps_64.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/traps_64.c
index 196ee5eb4d48..e882e128faa3 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/traps_64.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/traps_64.c
@@ -2258,7 +2258,7 @@ static void do_fpe_common(struct pt_regs *regs)
 		info.si_errno = 0;
 		info.si_addr = (void __user *)regs->tpc;
 		info.si_trapno = 0;
-		info.si_code = __SI_FAULT;
+		info.si_code = FPE_FIXME;
 		if ((fsr & 0x1c000) == (1 << 14)) {
 			if (fsr & 0x10)
 				info.si_code = FPE_FLTINV;
-- 
2.10.1