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, 21 Oct 2021 11:56:57 -0500
From: (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Kees Cook <>
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Oleg Nesterov <>,
        Al Viro <>,
        David Miller <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/20] signal/sparc32: Exit with a fatal signal when try_to_clear_window_buffer fails

Kees Cook <> writes:

> 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?

The ret_trap_continue is the break out of the loop.  So unless the code
is not properly setting the signal to be pending the code should be good.

> Also I see the "tp->w_saved = 0" never happens due to the "return" in
> try_to_clear_window_buffer. Is that okay?

It should be.  As you point out the w_saved value is only used in
generating signal frames.  The code in get_signal should never
return and should call do_group_exit which calls do_exit, so building
signal frames that happens after get_signal returns should never be

Further this is the same way the code makes it to do_exit today.

Also looking at it I think the logic is that w_saved == 0
says that the register windows have been saved on the user mode stack,
and that clearly has not happened so I think it would in general
be a bug to clear w_saved on failure.

> Only synchronize_user_stack()
> uses it, and that could be called in do_sigreturn(). Should the "return"
> be removed?

Of course I could be wrong, if David or someone else who knows sparc32
better than me wants to set me straight I would really appreciate it.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists