Re: [regression] x86/signal/64: Fix SS handling for signals delivered to 64-bit programs breaks dosemu

[Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>]

12.08.2015 22:20, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> wrote:
>> 12.08.2015 21:25, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/stsp/dosemu2/commit/7898ac60d5e569964127d6cc48f592caecd20b81
>>>>> So the problem is that dosemu was actually hacking around the old
>>>>> buggy behavior and thus relying on it.  Grr.
>>>> What else it could do? :(
>>> Going back in time?  Ask the kernel to fix the issue.
>> Like this?
>> http://www.x86-64.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-May/009913.html
>> And this:
>> http://www.x86-64.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-May/009923.html
> I apologize on behalf of the upstream kernel in 2007.  :-/  I wasn't
> really involved at that point.
:)

>>>>> Let me see if I can come up with a clean kernel fix.
>>>> The check for proper sigreturn would be good.
>>> I still don't see how sigreturn matters here.  It's signal *delivery*
>>> that's the problem.
>> But the delivery can be easily checked with "if (ss & 4)".
>> What remains is just a sigreturn instead of iret.
>>
>>> I'm thinking of having signal delivery zap ss only if the old ss looks
>>> bogus instead of zapping it unconditionally.  IOW, instead of setting
>>> regs->ss = __USER_DS unconditionally, we'd do larl on the old regs->ss
>>> and keep it if it's DPL 3 RW data (exp-down or otherwise) and present.
>> I am not sure how good is this.
>> Yes, may help for a backward-compatibility.
>> But OTOH the 32bit kernel saves _all_ registers, including
>> ss, which is IMHO the right thing to do in general.
> I agree.  So does x32.
>
> Are you planning on merging your patches into upstream DOSEMU?
Unlikely.
My git tree counts ~3000 patches already, so it is an
entirely separate project, which just happen to share
some code with dosemu (and under different license).
But we can discuss a binary-compatible fix, so that the
original dosemu can work too.

>>> I'll have to check the precise rules in both the SDM and APM.  The
>>> idea is that we don't want IRET to fail during signal delivery, which
>>> can happen due to a bad sigreturn or a race against modify_ldt.
>> Well, this is a "very basic" idea, so to say.
>> The fact that segregs are not restored, have much more
>> consequences, and since now you already broke things,
>> I wonder if something can be finally fixed for good...
>>
>> What alternatives do we have? Can we do something
>> really brave, introduce a new sigaction flag perhaps, that
>> will just restore all segregs for new apps, and none - for
>> old apps? I mean the above gcc bugzilla ticket in particular -
>> very annoying one...
> We might need to do that.
>
> Here's a nasty case:
>
> void sighandler(...) {
>    switch_userspace_thread();
> }
>
> Suppose that switch_userspace_thread() changes fs.  Now what?  On
The crash - see the gcc ticket in the prev e-mail.
If fs on function entry differs from fs on exit, the gcc
stack protector will terminate the program.
So such code will not exist, except maybe in some
asm form...

> current kernels, it stays switched.  If we change this, it won't stay
> switched.  Even ignoring old ABI, it's not really clear to me what the
> right thing to do is.
There can be the following cases:
- switch_userspace_thread() switches fs to non-zero selector
- switch_userspace_thread() switches the fs base via syscall
- switch_userspace_thread() switches fs in sigcontext
- switch_userspace_thread() switches fs_base in sigcontext (???)
What exactly case do you have in mind?
I'd say, the way x86_32 is doing things - is good, but the
bases... perhaps, in ideal world, they should be a part of
the sigcontext as well?