linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.19 11/44] signal: Better detection of synchronous signals

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: <20190213183652.619741099@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:38:12 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 11/44] signal: Better detection of synchronous signals

4.19-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>

commit 7146db3317c67b517258cb5e1b08af387da0618b upstream.

Recently syzkaller was able to create unkillablle processes by
creating a timer that is delivered as a thread local signal on SIGHUP,
and receiving SIGHUP SA_NODEFERER.  Ultimately causing a loop failing
to deliver SIGHUP but always trying.

When the stack overflows delivery of SIGHUP fails and force_sigsegv is
called.  Unfortunately because SIGSEGV is numerically higher than
SIGHUP next_signal tries again to deliver a SIGHUP.

>>From a quality of implementation standpoint attempting to deliver the
timer SIGHUP signal is wrong.  We should attempt to deliver the
synchronous SIGSEGV signal we just forced.

We can make that happening in a fairly straight forward manner by
instead of just looking at the signal number we also look at the
si_code.  In particular for exceptions (aka synchronous signals) the
si_code is always greater than 0.

That still has the potential to pick up a number of asynchronous
signals as in a few cases the same si_codes that are used
for synchronous signals are also used for asynchronous signals,
and SI_KERNEL is also included in the list of possible si_codes.

Still the heuristic is much better and timer signals are definitely
excluded.  Which is enough to prevent all known ways for someone
sending a process signals fast enough to cause unexpected and
arguably incorrect behavior.

Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Fixes: a27341cd5fcb ("Prioritize synchronous signals over 'normal' signals")
Tested-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/signal.c |   52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -681,6 +681,48 @@ int dequeue_signal(struct task_struct *t
 	return signr;
 }

+static int dequeue_synchronous_signal(siginfo_t *info)
+{
+	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+	struct sigpending *pending = &tsk->pending;
+	struct sigqueue *q, *sync = NULL;
+
+	/*
+	 * Might a synchronous signal be in the queue?
+	 */
+	if (!((pending->signal.sig[0] & ~tsk->blocked.sig[0]) & SYNCHRONOUS_MASK))
+		return 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * Return the first synchronous signal in the queue.
+	 */
+	list_for_each_entry(q, &pending->list, list) {
+		/* Synchronous signals have a postive si_code */
+		if ((q->info.si_code > SI_USER) &&
+		    (sigmask(q->info.si_signo) & SYNCHRONOUS_MASK)) {
+			sync = q;
+			goto next;
+		}
+	}
+	return 0;
+next:
+	/*
+	 * Check if there is another siginfo for the same signal.
+	 */
+	list_for_each_entry_continue(q, &pending->list, list) {
+		if (q->info.si_signo == sync->info.si_signo)
+			goto still_pending;
+	}
+
+	sigdelset(&pending->signal, sync->info.si_signo);
+	recalc_sigpending();
+still_pending:
+	list_del_init(&sync->list);
+	copy_siginfo(info, &sync->info);
+	__sigqueue_free(sync);
+	return info->si_signo;
+}
+
 /*
  * Tell a process that it has a new active signal..
  *
@@ -2408,7 +2450,15 @@ relock:
 			goto relock;
 		}

-		signr = dequeue_signal(current, &current->blocked, &ksig->info);
+		/*
+		 * Signals generated by the execution of an instruction
+		 * need to be delivered before any other pending signals
+		 * so that the instruction pointer in the signal stack
+		 * frame points to the faulting instruction.
+		 */
+		signr = dequeue_synchronous_signal(&ksig->info);
+		if (!signr)
+			signr = dequeue_signal(current, &current->blocked, &ksig->info);

 		if (!signr)
 			break; /* will return 0 */