linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] [bpf?] [trace?] possible deadlock in force_sig_info_to

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: <20240429103928.4166-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:39:28 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+83e7f982ca045ab4405c@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	andrii@...nel.org,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [bpf?] [trace?] possible deadlock in force_sig_info_to_task

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 18:33:41 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I cannot find it in myself to care, since I do not believe that
> anybody should be running with vsyscall=emulate in 2024 in the first
> place, much less if you are doing things like UML. But let's see if
> somebody screams.
> 
> Also, somebody should obviously test my COMPLETELY UNTESTED patch.

#syz test https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git  5eb4573ea63d

 arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c | 25 ++-----------------------
 arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h      |  1 -
 arch/x86/mm/fault.c                   | 33 +--------------------------------
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c b/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c
index a3c0df11d0e6..3b0f61b2ea6d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c
@@ -98,11 +98,6 @@ static int addr_to_vsyscall_nr(unsigned long addr)
 
 static bool write_ok_or_segv(unsigned long ptr, size_t size)
 {
-	/*
-	 * XXX: if access_ok, get_user, and put_user handled
-	 * sig_on_uaccess_err, this could go away.
-	 */
-
 	if (!access_ok((void __user *)ptr, size)) {
 		struct thread_struct *thread = &current->thread;
 
@@ -123,7 +118,6 @@ bool emulate_vsyscall(unsigned long error_code,
 	struct task_struct *tsk;
 	unsigned long caller;
 	int vsyscall_nr, syscall_nr, tmp;
-	int prev_sig_on_uaccess_err;
 	long ret;
 	unsigned long orig_dx;
 
@@ -234,12 +228,8 @@ bool emulate_vsyscall(unsigned long error_code,
 		goto do_ret;  /* skip requested */
 
 	/*
-	 * With a real vsyscall, page faults cause SIGSEGV.  We want to
-	 * preserve that behavior to make writing exploits harder.
+	 * With a real vsyscall, page faults cause SIGSEGV.
 	 */
-	prev_sig_on_uaccess_err = current->thread.sig_on_uaccess_err;
-	current->thread.sig_on_uaccess_err = 1;
-
 	ret = -EFAULT;
 	switch (vsyscall_nr) {
 	case 0:
@@ -262,23 +252,12 @@ bool emulate_vsyscall(unsigned long error_code,
 		break;
 	}
 
-	current->thread.sig_on_uaccess_err = prev_sig_on_uaccess_err;
-
 check_fault:
 	if (ret == -EFAULT) {
 		/* Bad news -- userspace fed a bad pointer to a vsyscall. */
 		warn_bad_vsyscall(KERN_INFO, regs,
 				  "vsyscall fault (exploit attempt?)");
-
-		/*
-		 * If we failed to generate a signal for any reason,
-		 * generate one here.  (This should be impossible.)
-		 */
-		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!sigismember(&tsk->pending.signal, SIGBUS) &&
-				 !sigismember(&tsk->pending.signal, SIGSEGV)))
-			goto sigsegv;
-
-		return true;  /* Don't emulate the ret. */
+		goto sigsegv;
 	}
 
 	regs->ax = ret;
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
index 811548f131f4..78e51b0d6433 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
@@ -472,7 +472,6 @@ struct thread_struct {
 	unsigned long		iopl_emul;
 
 	unsigned int		iopl_warn:1;
-	unsigned int		sig_on_uaccess_err:1;
 
 	/*
 	 * Protection Keys Register for Userspace.  Loaded immediately on
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
index 622d12ec7f08..bba4e020dd64 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
@@ -723,39 +723,8 @@ kernelmode_fixup_or_oops(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(user_mode(regs));
 
 	/* Are we prepared to handle this kernel fault? */
-	if (fixup_exception(regs, X86_TRAP_PF, error_code, address)) {
-		/*
-		 * Any interrupt that takes a fault gets the fixup. This makes
-		 * the below recursive fault logic only apply to a faults from
-		 * task context.
-		 */
-		if (in_interrupt())
-			return;
-
-		/*
-		 * Per the above we're !in_interrupt(), aka. task context.
-		 *
-		 * In this case we need to make sure we're not recursively
-		 * faulting through the emulate_vsyscall() logic.
-		 */
-		if (current->thread.sig_on_uaccess_err && signal) {
-			sanitize_error_code(address, &error_code);
-
-			set_signal_archinfo(address, error_code);
-
-			if (si_code == SEGV_PKUERR) {
-				force_sig_pkuerr((void __user *)address, pkey);
-			} else {
-				/* XXX: hwpoison faults will set the wrong code. */
-				force_sig_fault(signal, si_code, (void __user *)address);
-			}
-		}
-
-		/*
-		 * Barring that, we can do the fixup and be happy.
-		 */
+	if (fixup_exception(regs, X86_TRAP_PF, error_code, address))
 		return;
-	}
 
 	/*
 	 * AMD erratum #91 manifests as a spurious page fault on a PREFETCH
--