[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202110210927.D0B4B0342@keescook>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:34:31 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/20] signal/sparc32: Exit with a fatal signal when
try_to_clear_window_buffer fails
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:44:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> The function try_to_clear_window_buffer is only called from
> rtrap_32.c. After it is called the signal pending state is retested,
nit: rtrap_32.S
> and signals are handled if TIF_SIGPENDING is set. This allows
> try_to_clear_window_buffer to call force_fatal_signal and then rely on
> the signal being delivered to kill the process, without any danger of
> returning to userspace, or otherwise using possible corrupt state on
> failure.
The TIF_SIGPENDING test happens in do_notify_resume(), though I see
other code before that:
...
call try_to_clear_window_buffer
add %sp, STACKFRAME_SZ, %o0
b signal_p
...
signal_p:
andcc %g2, _TIF_DO_NOTIFY_RESUME_MASK, %g0
bz,a ret_trap_continue
ld [%sp + STACKFRAME_SZ + PT_PSR], %t_psr
mov %g2, %o2
mov %l6, %o1
call do_notify_resume
Will the ret_trap_continue always be skipped?
Also I see the "tp->w_saved = 0" never happens due to the "return" in
try_to_clear_window_buffer. Is that okay? Only synchronize_user_stack()
uses it, and that could be called in do_sigreturn(). Should the "return"
be removed?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists