linux-kernel - Re: wine fails to start with seccomp updates for v5.9-rc1

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:51:12 -0400
From:   "Alex Xu (Hello71)" <alex_y_xu@...oo.ca>
To:     Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...onical.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Denton <mpdenton@...gle.com>,
        Chris Palmer <palmer@...gle.com>,
        Robert Sesek <rsesek@...gle.com>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: wine fails to start with seccomp updates for v5.9-rc1

Excerpts from Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo's message of August 7, 2020 1:36 pm:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:48:46AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 8:19 AM Alex Xu (Hello71) <alex_y_xu@...oo.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Linus' master, wine fails to start with the following error:
>> >
>> > wine client error:0: write: Bad file descriptor
>> >
>> > This issue is not present on 5.8. It appears to be caused by failure to
>> > write to a pipe FD received via SCM_RIGHTS. Therefore, I tried reverting
>> > 9ecc6ea491f0, which resolved the issue.
>> 
>> Would you mind trying to bisect exactly where it happens?
>> 
> 
> This report [1] seemed related and pointed out at c0029de50982 ("net/scm:
> Regularize compat handling of scm_detach_fds()"). The use of CMSG_USER_DATA
> instead of CMSG_COMPAT_DATA seems fishy.
> 
> Alex, can you try applying the patch below?
> 
> Cascardo.
> 
> [1] https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2020-August/216156.html
> 
>> I don't think any of the commits in that pull are supposed to change
>> semantics, and while reverting the whole merge shows that yes, that's
>> what brought in the problems, it would be good to pinpoint just which
>> change breaks so that we can fix just that thing.
>> 
>> Kees, ideas?
>> 
>>                  Linus
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/net/compat.c b/net/compat.c
> index 703acb51c698..95ce707a30a3 100644
> --- a/net/compat.c
> +++ b/net/compat.c
> @@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ void scm_detach_fds_compat(struct msghdr *msg, struct scm_cookie *scm)
>  		(struct compat_cmsghdr __user *)msg->msg_control;
>  	unsigned int o_flags = (msg->msg_flags & MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC) ? O_CLOEXEC : 0;
>  	int fdmax = min_t(int, scm_max_fds_compat(msg), scm->fp->count);
> -	int __user *cmsg_data = CMSG_USER_DATA(cm);
> +	int __user *cmsg_data = CMSG_COMPAT_DATA(cm);
>  	int err = 0, i;
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < fdmax; i++) {
> 

Yes, this seems to work.

Tested-by: Alex Xu (Hello71) <alex_y_xu@...oo.ca>

Thanks!