linux-kernel - Re: strange interaction between fuse + pidns

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]

Message-ID: <Ysyp8Kbl8FzhApUb@netflix>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 16:53:36 -0600
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: strange interaction between fuse + pidns

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 04:37:12PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza> writes:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 03:59:15PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 12:35, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Can you try the attached untested patch?
> >> 
> >> Updated patch to avoid use after free on req->args.
> >> 
> >> Still mostly untested.
> >
> > Thanks, when I applied your patch, I still ended up with tasks stuck
> > waiting with a SIGKILL pending. So I looked into that and came up with
> > the patch below. With both your patch and mine, my testcase exits
> > cleanly.
> >
> > Eric (or Christian, or anyone), can you comment on the patch below? I
> > have no idea what this will break. Maybe instead a better approach is
> > some additional special case in __send_signal_locked()?
> >
> > Tycho
> >
> > From b7ea26adcf3546be5745063cc86658acb5ed37e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
> > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:26:58 -0600
> > Subject: [PATCH] sched: __fatal_signal_pending() should also check shared
> >  signals
> >
> > The wait_* code uses signal_pending_state() to test whether a thread has
> > been interrupted, which ultimately uses __fatal_signal_pending() to detect
> > if there is a fatal signal.
> >
> > When a pid ns dies, in zap_pid_ns_processes() it does:
> >
> >     group_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, task, PIDTYPE_MAX);
> >
> > for all the tasks in the pid ns. That calls through:
> >
> >     group_send_sig_info() ->
> >       do_send_sig_info() ->
> >         send_signal_locked() ->
> >           __send_signal_locked()
> >
> > which does:
> >
> >     pending = (type != PIDTYPE_PID) ? &t->signal->shared_pending : &t->pending;
> >
> > which puts sigkill in the set of shared signals, but not the individual
> > pending ones. If tasks are stuck in a killable wait (e.g. a fuse flush
> > operation), they won't see this shared signal, and will hang forever, since
> > TIF_SIGPENDING is set, but the fatal signal can't be detected.
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> That is perplexing.

Thanks for taking a look.

> __send_signal_locked calls complete_signal.  Then if any of the tasks of
> the process can receive the signal, complete_signal will loop through
> all of the tasks of the process and set the per thread SIGKILL.  Pretty
> much by definition tasks can always receive SIGKILL.
> 
> Is complete_signal not being able to do that?

In my specific case it was because my testcase was already trying to
exit and had set PF_EXITING when the signal is delivered, so
complete_signal() was indeed not able to do that since PF_EXITING is
checked before SIGKILL in wants_signal().

But I changed my testacase to sleep instead of exit, and I get the
same hang behavior, even though complete_signal() does add SIGKILL to
the set. So there's something else going on there...

> The patch below really should not be necessary, and I have pending work
> that if I can push over the finish line won't even make sense.
> 
> As it is currently an abuse to use the per thread SIGKILL to indicate
> that a fatal signal has been short circuit delivered.  That abuse as
> well as being unclean tends to confuse people reading the code.

How close is your work? I'm wondering if it's worth investigating the
non-PF_EXITING case further, or if we should just land this since it
fixes the PF_EXITING case as well. Or maybe just do something like
this in addition:

diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 6f86fda5e432..0f71dfb1c3d2 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -982,12 +982,12 @@ static inline bool wants_signal(int sig, struct task_struct *p)
        if (sigismember(&p->blocked, sig))
                return false;

-       if (p->flags & PF_EXITING)
-               return false;
-
        if (sig == SIGKILL)
                return true;

+       if (p->flags & PF_EXITING)
+               return false;
+
        if (task_is_stopped_or_traced(p))
                return false;

?

Tycho