linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] signal: Adjust error codes according to restore_user

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: <20190523163604.GE23070@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 18:36:04 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     'Deepa Dinamani' <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "dbueso@...e.de" <dbueso@...e.de>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Eric Wong <e@...24.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
        Omar Kilani <omar.kilani@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: Adjust error codes according to
 restore_user_sigmask()

On 05/23, David Laight wrote:
>
> From: Oleg Nesterov
> > On 05/23, David Laight wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm confused...
> >
> > Me too. To clarify, the current code is obviously buggy, pselect/whatever
> > shouldn't return 0 (or anything else) if it was interrupted and we are going
> > to deliver the signal.
>
> If it was interrupted the return value has to be EINTR.

Yes, and this is what we need to fix.

> Whether any signal handlers are called is a separate matter.

Not really... because in this case we know that the signal will be delivered,

> > Not sure I understand... OK, suppose that you do
> >
> > 	block-all-signals;
> > 	ret = pselect(..., sigmask(SIG_URG));
> >
> > if it returns success/timeout then the handler for SIG_URG should not be called?
>
> Ugg...
> Posix probably allows the signal handler be called at the point the event
> happens rather than being deferred until the system call completes.
> Queueing up the signal handler to be run at a later time (syscall exit)
> certainly makes sense.
> Definitely safest to call the signal handler even if success/timeout
> is returned.

Why?

> pselect() exists to stop the entry race, not the exit one.

pselect() has to block SIG_URG again before it returns to user-mode, right?

Suppose pselect() finds a ready fd, and this races with SIG_URG.

Why do you think the handler should run?

What if SIG_URG comes right after pselect() blocks SIG_URG again? I mean,
how this differs the case when it comes before, but a ready fd was already
found?

Oleg.