linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] signal: Move si_trapno into the _si

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:   Sat, 1 May 2021 18:26:17 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] signal: Move si_trapno into the _si_fault union

On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 02:37, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 01:48, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well with 7 patches instead of 3 that was a little more than I thought
> > I was going to send.
> >
> > However that does demonstrate what I am thinking, and I think most of
> > the changes are reasonable at this point.
> >
> > I am very curious how synchronous this all is, because if this code
> > is truly synchronous updating signalfd to handle this class of signal
> > doesn't really make sense.

Just a note on this: the reason for adding signalfd support was based
on the comment at SIL_FAULT_PKUERR:

>                 /*
>                   * Fall through to the SIL_FAULT case.  Both SIL_FAULT_BNDERR
>                   * and SIL_FAULT_PKUERR are only generated by faults that
>                   * deliver them synchronously to userspace.  In case someone
>                   * injects one of these signals and signalfd catches it treat
>                   * it as SIL_FAULT.
>                   */

The same would hold for SIL_FAULT_PERF_EVENT, where somebody injects
(re-injects perhaps?) such an event. But otherwise, yes,
non-synchronous handling of SIGTRAP/TRAP_PERF is pretty useless for
almost all usecases I can think of.

Thanks,
-- Marco