| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:26:00 -0700
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@...co.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@...il.com>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
"Victor Kamensky (kamensky)" <kamensky@...co.com>,
xe-linux-external@...co.com, Stefan Strogin <sstrogin@...co.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Enke Chen <enkechen@...co.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/signal: Signal-based pre-coredump notification
Hi, Olge:
>> probably ->predump_signal should be cleared on exec?
As I replied to Jann, will do.
Thanks. -- Enke
On 10/15/18 12:17 PM, Enke Chen wrote:
> Hi, Oleg:
>
> I missed some of your comments in my previous reply.
>
> On 10/15/18 5:05 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/12, Enke Chen wrote:
>>>
>>> For simplicity and consistency, this patch provides an implementation
>>> for signal-based fault notification prior to the coredump of a child
>>> process. A new prctl command, PR_SET_PREDUMP_SIG, is defined that can
>>> be used by an application to express its interest and to specify the
>>> signal (SIGCHLD or SIGUSR1 or SIGUSR2) for such a notification. A new
>>> signal code (si_code), CLD_PREDUMP, is also defined for SIGCHLD.
>>
>> To be honest, I can't say I like this new feature...
>>
>>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> @@ -696,6 +696,10 @@ struct task_struct {
>>> int exit_signal;
>>> /* The signal sent when the parent dies: */
>>> int pdeath_signal;
>>> +
>>> + /* The signal sent prior to a child's coredump: */
>>> + int predump_signal;
>>> +
>>
>> At least, I think predump_signal should live in signal_struct, not
>> task_struct.
>>
>> (pdeath_signal too, but it is too late to change (fix) this awkward API).
>>
>>> +static void do_notify_parent_predump(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>> +{
>>> + struct sighand_struct *sighand;
>>> + struct task_struct *parent;
>>> + struct kernel_siginfo info;
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> + int sig;
>>> +
>>> + parent = tsk->real_parent;
>>
>> So, debuggere won't be notified, only real_parent...
>>
>>> + sig = parent->predump_signal;
>>
>> probably ->predump_signal should be cleared on exec?
>
>
> Is this not enough in "copy_process()"?
>
> @@ -1985,6 +1985,7 @@ static __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
> p->dirty_paused_when = 0;
>
> p->pdeath_signal = 0;
> + p->predump_signal = 0;
>
>>
>>> + /* Check again with tasklist_lock" locked by the caller */
>>> + if (!valid_predump_signal(sig))
>>> + return;
>>
>> I don't understand why we need valid_predump_signal() at all.
>
> Most of the signals have well-defined semantics, and would not be appropriate
> for this purpose. That is why it is limited to only SIGCHLD, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2.
>
>>
>>> bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
>>> {
>>> struct sighand_struct *sighand = current->sighand;
>>> @@ -2497,6 +2535,19 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
>>> current->flags |= PF_SIGNALED;
>>>
>>> if (sig_kernel_coredump(signr)) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Notify the parent prior to the coredump if the
>>> + * parent is interested in such a notificaiton.
>>> + */
>>> + int p_sig = current->real_parent->predump_signal;
>>> +
>>> + if (valid_predump_signal(p_sig)) {
>>> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>>> + do_notify_parent_predump(current);
>>> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>>> + cond_resched();
>>
>> perhaps this should be called by do_coredump() after coredump_wait() kills
>> all the sub-threads?
>
> proc_coredump_connector(current) is located here, they should stay together.
>
> Thanks. -- Enke
>
>>
>>> +static int prctl_set_predump_signal(struct task_struct *tsk, pid_t pid, int sig)
>>> +{
>>> + struct task_struct *p;
>>> + int error;
>>> +
>>> + /* 0 is valid for disabling the feature */
>>> + if (sig && !valid_predump_signal(sig))
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + /* For the current task, the common case */
>>> + if (pid == 0) {
>>> + tsk->predump_signal = sig;
>>> + return 0;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + error = -ESRCH;
>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>> + p = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
>>> + if (p) {
>>> + if (!set_predump_signal_perm(p))
>>> + error = -EPERM;
>>> + else {
>>> + error = 0;
>>> + p->predump_signal = sig;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>> + return error;
>>> +}
>>
>> Why? I mean, why do we really want to support the pid != 0 case?
>>
>> Oleg.
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists