linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] signal: Add SA_IMMUTABLE to ensure forced siganls do not get changed

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 01 Nov 2021 17:28:07 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Add SA_IMMUTABLE to ensure forced siganls do not get changed

Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 10:09:04AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> 
>> As Andy pointed out that there are races between
>> force_sig_info_to_task and sigaction[1] when force_sig_info_task.  As
>> Kees discovered[2] ptrace is also able to change these signals.
>> 
>> In the case of seeccomp killing a process with a signal it is a
>> security violation to allow the signal to be caught or manipulated.
>> 
>> Solve this problem by introducing a new flag SA_IMMUTABLE that
>> prevents sigaction and ptrace from modifying these forced signals.
>> This flag is carefully made kernel internal so that no new ABI is
>> introduced.
>> 
>> Longer term I think this can be solved by guaranteeing short circuit
>> delivery of signals in this case.  Unfortunately reliable and
>> guaranteed short circuit delivery of these signals is still a ways off
>> from being implemented, tested, and merged.  So I have implemented a much
>> simpler alternative for now.
>> 
>> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/b5d52d25-7bde-4030-a7b1-7c6f8ab90660@www.fastmail.com
>> [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/202110281136.5CE65399A7@keescook
>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>> Fixes: 307d522f5eb8 ("signal/seccomp: Refactor seccomp signal and coredump generation")
>> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>> ---
>
> FWIW I've tested this patch and I confirm that it fixes the failure that
> I reported with the seccomp_bpf selftest.
>
> Tested-by: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com>

Sigh.  Except for the extra 0 in the definition of SA_IMMUTABLE
that caused it to conflict with the x86 specific signal numbers.

Eric