linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd

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:   Sat, 01 Dec 2018 18:06:49 -0600
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, christian@...uner.io,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, cyphar@...har.com,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall

Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> writes:

>> On Dec 1, 2018, at 7:28 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> It just occurs to me that the simple way to implement
>> procfd_sigqueueinfo info is like:
>> 
>> int copy_siginfo_from_user_any(kernel_siginfo_t *info, siginfo_t *uinfo)
>> {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>>    if (in_compat_syscall)
>>        return copy_siginfo_from_user32(info, uinfo);
>> #endif
>>    return copy_siginfo_from_user(info, uinfo);                        
>> }
>> 
>> long procfd_sigqueueinfo(int fd, siginfo_t *uinfo)
>> {
>>    kernel_siginfo info;
>> 
>>        if (copy_siginfo_from_user_any(&info, uinfo))
>>            return -EFAULT;
>>    ...;                
>> }
>> 
>> It looks like there is already a place in ptrace.c that already
>> hand rolls copy_siginfo_from_user_any.
>> 
>> So while I would love to figure out the subset of siginfo_t tha we can
>> just pass through, as I think that would make a better more forward
>> compatible copy_siginfo_from_user32.
>
> Seems reasonable to me. It’s less code overall than any other suggestion, too.
>
>>  I think for this use case we just
>> add the in_compat_syscall test and then we just need to ensure this new
>> system call is placed in the proper places in the syscall table.
>> 
>> Because we will need 3 call sights: x86_64, x32 and ia32.  As the layout
>> changes between those three subarchitecuters.
>> 
>> 
>
> If it’s done this way, it can just be “common” in the 64-bit
> table. And we kick the can a bit farther down the road :)
>
> I’m working on patches to clean up x86’s syscall mess. It’s slow
> because I keep finding new messes.  So far I have rt_sigreturn working
> like every other syscall — whee.
>
> Also, Eric, for your edification, I have a draft patch set to
> radically simplify x86’s signal delivery and return.  Once that’s
> done, I can trivially speed up delivery by a ton by using sysret.

Nice.

Do we care about the performance of synchronous signal delivery (AKA
hardware exceptions) vs ordinary signal delivery.  I get the feeling
there are serious simplifications to be had in that case.

Eric