linux-kernel - Re: pselect/etc semantics (Was: [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]

Date:   Wed, 29 May 2019 18:50:12 +0000
From:   Eric Wong <e@...24.org>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     'Oleg Nesterov' <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>, "dbueso@...e.de" <dbueso@...e.de>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "dave@...olabs.net" <dave@...olabs.net>,
        "jbaron@...mai.com" <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
        "omar.kilani@...il.com" <omar.kilani@...il.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pselect/etc semantics (Was: [PATCH v2] signal: Adjust error
 codes according to restore_user_sigmask())

David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
> From: Oleg Nesterov
> > Sent: 29 May 2019 17:12
> > Al, Linus, Eric, please help.
> > 
> > The previous discussion was very confusing, we simply can not understand each
> > other.
> > 
> > To me everything looks very simple and clear, but perhaps I missed something
> > obvious? Please correct me.
> > 
> > I think that the following code is correct
> > 
> > 	int interrupted = 0;
> > 
> > 	void sigint_handler(int sig)
> > 	{
> > 		interrupted = 1;
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	int main(void)
> > 	{
> > 		sigset_t sigint, empty;
> > 
> > 		sigemptyset(&sigint);
> > 		sigaddset(&sigint, SIGINT);
> > 		sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &sigint, NULL);
> > 
> > 		signal(SIGINT, sigint_handler);
> > 
> > 		sigemptyset(&empty);	// so pselect() unblocks SIGINT
> > 
> > 		ret = pselect(..., &empty);
>                                 ^^^^^ sigint
> > 
> > 		if (ret >= 0)		// sucess or timeout
> > 			assert(!interrupted);
> > 
> > 		if (interrupted)
> > 			assert(ret == -EINTR);
> > 	}
> > 
> > IOW, if pselect(sigmask) temporary unblocks SIGINT according to sigmask, this
> > signal should not be delivered if a ready fd was found or timeout. The signal
> > handle should only run if ret == -EINTR.
> 
> Personally I think that is wrong.
> Given code like the above that has:
> 		while (!interrupted) {
> 			pselect(..., &sigint);
> 			// process available data
> 		}
> 
> You want the signal handler to be executed even if one of the fds
> always has available data.
> Otherwise you can't interrupt a process that is always busy.

Agreed...  I believe cmogstored has always had a bug in the way
it uses epoll_pwait because it failed to check interrupts if:

a) an FD is ready + interrupt
b) epoll_pwait returns 0 on interrupt

The bug remains in userspace for a), which I will fix by adding
an interrupt check when an FD is ready.  The window is very
small for a) and difficult to trigger, and also in a rare code
path.

The b) case is the kernel bug introduced in 854a6ed56839a40f
("signal: Add restore_user_sigmask()").

I don't think there's any disagreement that b) is a kernel bug.

So the confusion is for a), and POSIX is not clear w.r.t. how
pselect/poll works when there's both FD readiness and an
interrupt.

Thus I'm inclined to believe *select/*poll/epoll_*wait should
follow POSIX read() semantics:

       If a read() is interrupted by a signal before it reads any data, it shall
       return −1 with errno set to [EINTR].

       If  a  read()  is  interrupted by a signal after it has successfully read
       some data, it shall return the number of bytes read.

> One option is to return -EINTR if a signal is pending when the mask
> is updated - before even looking at anything else.
>
> Signals that happen later on (eg after a timeout) need not be reported
> (until the next time around the loop).

I'm not sure that's necessary and it would cause delays in
signal handling.