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  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, 13 May 2020 22:51:53 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        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

----- On May 13, 2020, at 8:12 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@...utronix.de wrote:
[...]
> 
>>> 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().
> 

[...]

Yes, I'm very well aware of this. But the patch commit message states:

"Make sure task_work runs before any kind of userspace -- very much
including signals -- is invoked."

which seems to imply that "userspace" can be "invoked" before the task_work
runs. Which makes no sense whatsoever. Hence my confused state.

>>> 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:

Yes indeed, whether either a signal handler frame fixup or return IP
fixup fires first (clearing the rseq_cs pointer in the process) is
irrelevant, because they will have the effect on the user-space program's
flow. And as you say, given it is run in a loop and can be preempted,
any order can happen here, so we have to be prepared for it. This loop
has caused me tons of headaches when stress-testing on NUMA machines by
the way.

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

Not sure about that, see Andy's follow up.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists