linux-kernel - Re: [patch V4 part 1 05/36] x86/entry: Flip _TIF_SIGPENDING and _TIF_NOTIFY

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: <87v9kzz862.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 02:12:21 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "Joel Fernandes\, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V4 part 1 05/36] x86/entry: Flip _TIF_SIGPENDING and _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME handling

Steven, Mathieu

(combo reply)

Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> writes:
> On Wed, 13 May 2020 16:56:41 -0400 (EDT)
>> > +		/* deal with pending signal delivery */
>> > +		if (cached_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
>> > +			do_signal(regs);
>
> Looking deeper into this, it appears that do_signal() can freeze or kill the
> task.
>
> That is, it wont go back to user space here, but simply schedule out (being
> traced) or even exit (killed).
>
> Before the resume hooks would never be called in such cases, and now they
> are.

It theoretically matters because pending task work might kill the
task. That's the concern Andy and Peter had. Assume the following:

usermode

 -> exception
    set not fatal signal

    -> exception
        queue task work to kill task
    <- return

  <- return

The same could happen when the non fatal signal is set from a remote CPU.

So in theory that would result in:

   handle non fatal signal first

   handle task work which kills task

which would be the wrong order.

But that's just illusion.

>> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:

>> Also, color me confused: is "do_signal()" actually running any user-space,
>> or just setting up the user-space stack for eventual return to signal
>> handler ?

I'm surprised that you can't answer that question yourself. How did you
ever make rseq work and how did rseq_signal_deliver() end up in
setup_rt_frame()?

Hint: Tracing might answer that question

And to cut it short:

    Exit to user space happnes only through ONE channel, i.e. leaving
    prepare_exit_to usermode().

      exit_to_usermode_loop <-prepare_exit_to_usermode
      do_signal <-exit_to_usermode_loop
      get_signal <-do_signal
      setup_sigcontext <-do_signal
      do_syscall_64 <-entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
      syscall_trace_enter <-do_syscall_64

      sys_rt_sigreturn()
      restore_altstack <-__ia32_sys_rt_sigreturn
      syscall_slow_exit_work <-do_syscall_64
      exit_to_usermode_loop <-do_syscall_64

>> Also, it might be OK, but we're changing the order of two things which
>> have effects on each other: restartable sequences abort fixup for preemption
>> and do_signal(), which also have effects on rseq abort.
>> 
>> Because those two will cause the abort to trigger, I suspect changing
>> the order might be OK, but we really need to think this through.

That's a purely academic problem. The order is completely
irrelevant. You have to handle any order anyway:

usermode

  -> exception / syscall
       sets signal

   <- return

  prepare_exit_to_usemode()
      cached_flags = READ_ONCE(t->flags);
      exit_to_user_mode_loop(regs, cached_flags) {
        while (cached_flags) {
           local_irq_enable();

           handle(cached_flags & RESCHED);
           handle(cached_flags & UPROBE);
           handle(cached_flags & PATCHING);
           handle(cached_flags & SIGNAL);
           handle(cached_flags & NOTIFY_RESUME);
           handle(cached_flags & RETURN_NOTIFY);

           local_irq_disable();
           
           cached_flags = READ_ONCE(t->flags);
         }

cached_flag is a momentary snapshot when attempting to return to user
space.

But after reenabling interrupts any of the relevant flag bits can be set
by an exception/interrupt or from remote. If preemption is enabled the
task can be scheduled out, migrated at any point before disabling
interrupts again. Even after disabling interrupts and before re-reading
cached flags there might be a remote change of flags.

That said, even for the case Andy and Peter were looking at (MCE) the
ordering is completely irrelevant.

I should have thought about this before, so thanks to both of you for
making me look at it again for the very wrong reasons.

Consider the patch dropped.

Thanks,

        tglx