All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
	Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
	David Spickett <david.spickett@linaro.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/7] signal: define the SA_UNSUPPORTED bit in sa_flags
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 16:13:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200908151306.GU6642@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f37a8b86c53be4cc440a73be4123e0419deefe5f.1598072840.git.pcc@google.com>

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:10:14PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote:

Nit: no statement of the chage being made (other than in the subject
line).

> This bit will never be supported in the uapi. The purpose of this flag
> bit is to allow userspace to distinguish an old kernel that does not
> clear unknown sa_flags bits from a kernel that supports every flag bit.
> 
> In other words, if userspace finds that this bit remains set in
> oldact.sa_flags, it means that the kernel cannot be trusted to have
> cleared unknown flag bits from sa_flags, so no assumptions about flag
> bit support can be made.

This isn't quite right?  After a single sigaction() call, oact will
contain the sa_flags for the previously registered handler.  So a
second sigaction() call would be needed to find out the newly effective
sa_flags.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
> ---
> View this change in Gerrit: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/q/Ic2501ad150a3a79c1cf27fb8c99be342e9dffbcb
> 
>  include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h | 7 +++++++
>  kernel/signal.c                        | 6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h
> index 319628058a53..e853cbe8722d 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h
> @@ -14,6 +14,12 @@
>   * SA_RESTART flag to get restarting signals (which were the default long ago)
>   * SA_NODEFER prevents the current signal from being masked in the handler.
>   * SA_RESETHAND clears the handler when the signal is delivered.
> + * SA_UNSUPPORTED is a flag bit that will never be supported. Kernels from
> + * before the introduction of SA_UNSUPPORTED did not clear unknown bits from
> + * sa_flags when read using the oldact argument to sigaction and rt_sigaction,
> + * so this bit allows flag bit support to be detected from userspace while
> + * allowing an old kernel to be distinguished from a kernel that supports every
> + * flag bit.
>   *
>   * SA_ONESHOT and SA_NOMASK are the historical Linux names for the Single
>   * Unix names RESETHAND and NODEFER respectively.
> @@ -42,6 +48,7 @@
>  #ifndef SA_RESETHAND
>  #define SA_RESETHAND	0x80000000
>  #endif
> +#define SA_UNSUPPORTED	0x00000400

I guess people may debate which bit is chosen, but your consolidation
of these definitions should help to reduce the possibility of future
collisions.  This bit appears unused for now, so I guess I don't have a
strong opinion.

>  #define SA_NOMASK	SA_NODEFER
>  #define SA_ONESHOT	SA_RESETHAND
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index f802c82c7bcc..c80e70bde11d 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -3984,6 +3984,12 @@ int do_sigaction(int sig, struct k_sigaction *act, struct k_sigaction *oact)
>  	if (oact)
>  		*oact = *k;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Make sure that we never accidentally claim to support SA_UNSUPPORTED,
> +	 * e.g. by having an architecture use the bit in their uapi.
> +	 */
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(UAPI_SA_FLAGS & SA_UNSUPPORTED);
> +

Seems reasonable.

With the above rewording in the commit message to clarify that a second
sigaction() is needed:

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>

[...]

Cheers
---Dave

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
Cc: Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
	David Spickett <david.spickett@linaro.org>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/7] signal: define the SA_UNSUPPORTED bit in sa_flags
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 16:13:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200908151306.GU6642@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f37a8b86c53be4cc440a73be4123e0419deefe5f.1598072840.git.pcc@google.com>

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:10:14PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote:

Nit: no statement of the chage being made (other than in the subject
line).

> This bit will never be supported in the uapi. The purpose of this flag
> bit is to allow userspace to distinguish an old kernel that does not
> clear unknown sa_flags bits from a kernel that supports every flag bit.
> 
> In other words, if userspace finds that this bit remains set in
> oldact.sa_flags, it means that the kernel cannot be trusted to have
> cleared unknown flag bits from sa_flags, so no assumptions about flag
> bit support can be made.

This isn't quite right?  After a single sigaction() call, oact will
contain the sa_flags for the previously registered handler.  So a
second sigaction() call would be needed to find out the newly effective
sa_flags.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
> ---
> View this change in Gerrit: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/q/Ic2501ad150a3a79c1cf27fb8c99be342e9dffbcb
> 
>  include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h | 7 +++++++
>  kernel/signal.c                        | 6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h
> index 319628058a53..e853cbe8722d 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h
> @@ -14,6 +14,12 @@
>   * SA_RESTART flag to get restarting signals (which were the default long ago)
>   * SA_NODEFER prevents the current signal from being masked in the handler.
>   * SA_RESETHAND clears the handler when the signal is delivered.
> + * SA_UNSUPPORTED is a flag bit that will never be supported. Kernels from
> + * before the introduction of SA_UNSUPPORTED did not clear unknown bits from
> + * sa_flags when read using the oldact argument to sigaction and rt_sigaction,
> + * so this bit allows flag bit support to be detected from userspace while
> + * allowing an old kernel to be distinguished from a kernel that supports every
> + * flag bit.
>   *
>   * SA_ONESHOT and SA_NOMASK are the historical Linux names for the Single
>   * Unix names RESETHAND and NODEFER respectively.
> @@ -42,6 +48,7 @@
>  #ifndef SA_RESETHAND
>  #define SA_RESETHAND	0x80000000
>  #endif
> +#define SA_UNSUPPORTED	0x00000400

I guess people may debate which bit is chosen, but your consolidation
of these definitions should help to reduce the possibility of future
collisions.  This bit appears unused for now, so I guess I don't have a
strong opinion.

>  #define SA_NOMASK	SA_NODEFER
>  #define SA_ONESHOT	SA_RESETHAND
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index f802c82c7bcc..c80e70bde11d 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -3984,6 +3984,12 @@ int do_sigaction(int sig, struct k_sigaction *act, struct k_sigaction *oact)
>  	if (oact)
>  		*oact = *k;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Make sure that we never accidentally claim to support SA_UNSUPPORTED,
> +	 * e.g. by having an architecture use the bit in their uapi.
> +	 */
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(UAPI_SA_FLAGS & SA_UNSUPPORTED);
> +

Seems reasonable.

With the above rewording in the commit message to clarify that a second
sigaction() is needed:

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>

[...]

Cheers
---Dave

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-08 15:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-22  5:10 [PATCH v10 0/7] arm64: expose FAR_EL1 tag bits in siginfo Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-22  5:10 ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-22  5:10 ` [PATCH v10 1/7] parisc: start using signal-defs.h Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-22  5:10   ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-30 17:07   ` Helge Deller
2020-10-03  1:22     ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-03 10:04       ` Helge Deller
2020-09-08 15:12   ` Dave Martin
2020-09-08 15:12     ` Dave Martin
2020-08-22  5:10 ` [PATCH v10 2/7] arch: move SA_* definitions to generic headers Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-22  5:10   ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-09-08 15:12   ` Dave Martin
2020-09-08 15:12     ` Dave Martin
2020-10-03  1:14     ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-03  1:14       ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-05 11:06       ` Dave Martin
2020-10-05 11:06         ` Dave Martin
2020-08-22  5:10 ` [PATCH v10 3/7] signal: clear non-uapi flag bits when passing/returning sa_flags Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-22  5:10   ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-09-08 15:12   ` Dave Martin
2020-09-08 15:12     ` Dave Martin
2020-10-08  2:23     ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-08  2:23       ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-22  5:10 ` [PATCH v10 4/7] signal: define the SA_UNSUPPORTED bit in sa_flags Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-22  5:10   ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-09-08 15:13   ` Dave Martin [this message]
2020-09-08 15:13     ` Dave Martin
2020-10-08  2:21     ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-08  2:21       ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-12 13:37       ` Dave Martin
2020-10-12 13:37         ` Dave Martin
2020-08-22  5:10 ` [PATCH v10 5/7] signal: deduplicate code dealing with common _sigfault fields Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-22  5:10   ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-09-08 15:13   ` Dave Martin
2020-09-08 15:13     ` Dave Martin
2020-10-06  5:07     ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-06  5:07       ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-07  8:56       ` Dave Martin
2020-10-07  8:56         ` Dave Martin
2020-08-22  5:10 ` [PATCH v10 6/7] signal: define the field siginfo.si_xflags Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-22  5:10   ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-09-08 15:13   ` Dave Martin
2020-09-08 15:13     ` Dave Martin
2020-10-08  2:11     ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-08  2:11       ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-09 18:19       ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-09 18:19         ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-12 13:57         ` Dave Martin
2020-10-12 13:57           ` Dave Martin
2020-10-12 13:55       ` Dave Martin
2020-10-12 13:55         ` Dave Martin
2020-08-22  5:10 ` [PATCH v10 7/7] arm64: expose FAR_EL1 tag bits in siginfo Peter Collingbourne
2020-08-22  5:10   ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-09-08 15:13   ` Dave Martin
2020-09-08 15:13     ` Dave Martin
2020-10-08  2:54     ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-08  2:54       ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-12 14:14       ` Dave Martin
2020-10-12 14:14         ` Dave Martin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200908151306.GU6642@arm.com \
    --to=dave.martin@arm.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=david.spickett@linaro.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=eugenis@google.com \
    --cc=kcc@google.com \
    --cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=pcc@google.com \
    --cc=rth@twiddle.net \
    --cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.