linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.11 43/44] signal: don't allow STOP on PF_IO

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:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:34:18 +0100
From:   Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.11 43/44] signal: don't allow STOP on
 PF_IO_WORKER threads

Am 25.03.21 um 12:24 schrieb Sasha Levin:
> From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> 
> [ Upstream commit 4db4b1a0d1779dc159f7b87feb97030ec0b12597 ]
> 
> Just like we don't allow normal signals to IO threads, don't deliver a
> STOP to a task that has PF_IO_WORKER set. The IO threads don't take
> signals in general, and have no means of flushing out a stop either.
> 
> Longer term, we may want to look into allowing stop of these threads,
> as it relates to eg process freezing. For now, this prevents a spin
> issue if a SIGSTOP is delivered to the parent task.
> 
> Reported-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/signal.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index 55526b941011..00a3840f6037 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -288,7 +288,8 @@ bool task_set_jobctl_pending(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long mask)
>  			JOBCTL_STOP_SIGMASK | JOBCTL_TRAPPING));
>  	BUG_ON((mask & JOBCTL_TRAPPING) && !(mask & JOBCTL_PENDING_MASK));
>  
> -	if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(task) || (task->flags & PF_EXITING)))
> +	if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(task) ||
> +		     (task->flags & (PF_EXITING | PF_IO_WORKER))))
>  		return false;
>  
>  	if (mask & JOBCTL_STOP_SIGMASK)
> 

Again, why is this proposed for 5.11 and 5.10 already?

metze