[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06722BDE-738A-4513-886E-2C1442C97369@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 17:21:04 +0000
From: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"Dave.Martin@....com" <Dave.Martin@....com>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"carlos@...hat.com" <carlos@...hat.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/6] x86/signal: Detect and prevent an alternate signal
stack overflow
On Mar 25, 2021, at 09:20, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
>
> $ gcc tst-minsigstksz-2.c -DMY_MINSIGSTKSZ=3453 -o tst-minsigstksz-2
> $ ./tst-minsigstksz-2
> tst-minsigstksz-2: changed byte 50 bytes below configured stack
>
> Whoops.
>
> And the debug print said:
>
> [ 5395.252884] signal: get_sigframe: sp: 0x7f54ec39e7b8, sas_ss_sp: 0x7f54ec39e6ce, sas_ss_size 0xd7d
>
> which tells me that, AFAICT, your check whether we have enough alt stack
> doesn't seem to work in this case.
Yes, in this case.
tst-minsigstksz-2.c has this code:
static void
handler (int signo)
{
/* Clear a bit of on-stack memory. */
volatile char buffer[256];
for (size_t i = 0; i < sizeof (buffer); ++i)
buffer[i] = 0;
handler_run = 1;
}
…
if (handler_run != 1)
errx (1, "handler did not run");
for (void *p = stack_buffer; p < stack_bottom; ++p)
if (*(unsigned char *) p != 0xCC)
errx (1, "changed byte %zd bytes below configured stack\n",
stack_bottom - p);
…
I think the message comes from the handler’s overwriting, not from the kernel.
The patch's check is to detect and prevent the kernel-induced overflow --
whether alt stack enough for signal delivery itself. The stack is possibly
not enough for the signal handler's use as the kernel does not know for it.
Thanks,
Chang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists