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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20170822094523.GA5439@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:45:24 +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 Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:42:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:58:49PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> That doesn't seem to be the case, testing on v4.13-rc5.
> 
> I used sigaltstack() to use the userfaultfd region as signal stack,
> registerd a SIGSEGV handler, and dereferenced NULL. The task locks up,
> but when killed with a SIGINT or SIGKILL, the exit status reflects that
> signal, rather than the SIGSEGV.
> 
> If I move the SIGINT handler onto the userfaultfd-monitored stack, then
> delivering SIGINT hangs, but can be killed with SIGKILL, and the exit
> status reflects that SIGKILL.
> 
> As you say, it does look like we'd try to set up a deferred SIGSEGV for
> the failed signal delivery.
> 
> I haven't yet figured out exactly how that works; I'll keep digging.

The SEGV makes it all the way into do_group_exit, but then signal_group_exit
is set and the exit_code is overridden with SIGKILL at the last minute (see
complete_signal).

So I'm happy that your patch is doing the right thing -- could you send a
rebased version please?

Thanks,

Will