public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, arch/*/*/*signal*.c and all such
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 04:32:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120428033245.GT6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120428024208.GS6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 03:42:08AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:15:26AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > I think all such architectures need that check lifted to do_notify_resume()
> > (and the rest needs it killed, of course).  Including x86, by the look
> > of it - we _probably_ can't get there with TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME and
> > !user_mode(regs), but I'm not entirely sure of that.  arm is in about the
> > same situation; alpha, ppc{32,64}, sparc{32,64} and m68k really can't get
> > there like that (they all check it in the asm glue).  mips probably might,
> > unless I'm misreading their ret_from_fork()...  Fun.
> 
> It's actually worse than I thought - we can't just lift that check
> to do_notify_resume() and be done with that.  Suppose do_signal() does
> get called on e.g. i386 or arm with !user_mode(regs).  What'll happen next?
> 
> We have TIF_SIGPENDING set in thread flags - otherwise we wouldn't get
> there at all.  OK, do_signal() doesn't do anything and returns.  So does
> do_notify_resume().  And we are back into the loop in asm glue, rereading
> the thread flags (still unchanged), checking if anything is to be done
> (yes, it is - TIF_SIGPENDING is still set), calling do_notify_resume(),
> ad infinitum.
> 
> Lifting the check into do_notify_resume() will not help at all, obviously.
> 
> AFAICS we can get hit by that.  At least i386, arm and mips have
> ret_from_fork going straight to "return from syscall" path, no checks for
> return to user mode done.  And process created by kernel_thread() will
> go there.  It's a narrow race, but AFAICS it's not impossible to hit -
> guess the PID of kernel thread to be launched, send it a signal and hit
> the moment before it gets to executing the payload.
> 
> It's probably not exploitable unless you are root, since most of the
> threads are spawned either by kthreadd or by khelper, both running as
> root.  OTOH, there might be other places leading to the same fun - e.g.
> kernel_execve() goes through the normal syscall return path almost on
> everything and in case of failure it returns to kernel mode.  Again,
> that one is unlikely to be exploitable (it only happens from root-owned
> threads), but I'm not sure if anything else gets there; IIRC, there had
> been an effort to get rid of issuing syscalls via int/syscall/trap/whatnot,
> but I don't remember how far did it go, especially under arch...

Actually, it looks like on i386 the loop will be broken by checks in
resume_userspace_sig, so the worst thing that might happen would be
a bogus call of tracehook_notify_resume() if it's possible to get there
with TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME for kernel thread.  No such luck on arm, though...
To be honest, I'd rather check for user_mode() before calling
do_notify_resume() and go away to no_work_pending if it's true.  For arm
and i386 that would probably look like this, and I'd really, *really*
like review and comments on that.  amd64 is, AFAICS, careful enough to
avoid hitting do_notify_resume() when returning into the kernel mode -
its implementations of ret_from_fork and kernel_execve take care to avoid
that.

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S
index 82aaf0a..e147619 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S
@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@ work_pending:
 	 * TIF_SIGPENDING or TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME must've been set if we got here
 	 */
 	mov	r0, sp				@ 'regs'
+	ldr	r2, [sp, #S_PSR]
+	tst	r2, #15
+	be	no_work_pending
 	mov	r2, why				@ 'syscall'
 	tst	r1, #_TIF_SIGPENDING		@ delivering a signal?
 	movne	why, #0				@ prevent further restarts
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
index cd41742..f7b7a1c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
@@ -641,15 +641,6 @@ static void do_signal(struct pt_regs *regs, int syscall)
 	int signr;
 
 	/*
-	 * We want the common case to go fast, which
-	 * is why we may in certain cases get here from
-	 * kernel mode. Just return without doing anything
-	 * if so.
-	 */
-	if (!user_mode(regs))
-		return;
-
-	/*
 	 * If we were from a system call, check for system call restarting...
 	 */
 	if (syscall) {
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S
index 7b784f4..e858462 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S
@@ -321,7 +321,6 @@ ret_from_exception:
 	preempt_stop(CLBR_ANY)
 ret_from_intr:
 	GET_THREAD_INFO(%ebp)
-resume_userspace_sig:
 #ifdef CONFIG_VM86
 	movl PT_EFLAGS(%esp), %eax	# mix EFLAGS and CS
 	movb PT_CS(%esp), %al
@@ -628,9 +627,13 @@ work_notifysig:				# deal with pending signals and
 					# vm86-space
 	TRACE_IRQS_ON
 	ENABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE)
+	movb PT_CS(%esp), %bl
+	andl $SEGMENT_RPL_MASK, %ebx
+	cmpl $USER_RPL, %ebx
+	jb resume_kernel
 	xorl %edx, %edx
 	call do_notify_resume
-	jmp resume_userspace_sig
+	jmp resume_userspace
 
 	ALIGN
 work_notifysig_v86:
@@ -643,9 +646,13 @@ work_notifysig_v86:
 #endif
 	TRACE_IRQS_ON
 	ENABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE)
+	movb PT_CS(%esp), %bl
+	andl $SEGMENT_RPL_MASK, %ebx
+	cmpl $USER_RPL, %ebx
+	jb resume_kernel
 	xorl %edx, %edx
 	call do_notify_resume
-	jmp resume_userspace_sig
+	jmp resume_userspace
 END(work_pending)
 
 	# perform syscall exit tracing
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
index 595969f..c4aa7c5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
@@ -738,16 +738,6 @@ static void do_signal(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	siginfo_t info;
 	int signr;
 
-	/*
-	 * We want the common case to go fast, which is why we may in certain
-	 * cases get here from kernel mode. Just return without doing anything
-	 * if so.
-	 * X86_32: vm86 regs switched out by assembly code before reaching
-	 * here, so testing against kernel CS suffices.
-	 */
-	if (!user_mode(regs))
-		return;
-
 	signr = get_signal_to_deliver(&info, &ka, regs, NULL);
 	if (signr > 0) {
 		/* Whee! Actually deliver the signal.  */

  reply	other threads:[~2012-04-28  3:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-04-18 13:04 [PULL REQUEST] : ima-appraisal patches Mimi Zohar
2012-04-18 15:02 ` James Morris
2012-04-18 18:07   ` Mimi Zohar
2012-04-18 18:39     ` Al Viro
2012-04-18 20:56       ` Mimi Zohar
2012-04-19 19:57       ` Mimi Zohar
2012-04-20  0:43         ` [RFC] situation with fput() locking (was Re: [PULL REQUEST] : ima-appraisal patches) Al Viro
2012-04-20  2:31           ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20  2:54             ` Al Viro
2012-04-20  2:58               ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20  8:09                 ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 15:56                   ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20 16:08                     ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 16:42                       ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 17:21                         ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20 18:07                           ` Al Viro
2012-04-23 18:01                             ` [RFC] TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, arch/*/*/*signal*.c and all such Al Viro
2012-04-23 18:37                               ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-24  7:26                               ` Al Viro
2012-04-25  3:06                                 ` Al Viro
2012-04-25 12:37                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 12:50                                     ` Al Viro
2012-04-25 13:03                                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 13:32                                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 13:32                                         ` Al Viro
2012-04-25 14:52                                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 15:46                                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 16:10                                               ` Al Viro
2012-04-25 17:02                                                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 17:51                                                   ` Al Viro
2012-04-26  7:15                                                     ` Martin Schwidefsky
2012-04-26  7:25                                                       ` David Miller
2012-04-26 13:52                                                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-26 14:31                                                         ` Martin Schwidefsky
2012-04-26 13:22                                                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-26 18:37                                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-26 23:19                                   ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 17:24                                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-27 17:54                                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-02 10:37                                         ` Matt Fleming
2012-05-02 14:14                                           ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 18:45                                       ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 19:14                                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-04-27 19:34                                           ` Al Viro
2012-04-29 22:51                                             ` Al Viro
2012-04-30  6:39                                               ` Greg Ungerer
2012-04-27 19:42                                         ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 20:20                                         ` Roland McGrath
2012-04-27 21:12                                           ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 21:27                                             ` Roland McGrath
2012-04-27 23:15                                               ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 23:32                                                 ` Al Viro
2012-04-29  4:12                                                   ` Al Viro
2012-04-30  8:06                                                     ` Martin Schwidefsky
2012-04-27 23:50                                                 ` Al Viro
2012-04-28 18:51                                                   ` [PATCH] arch/tile: avoid calling do_signal() after fork from a kernel thread Chris Metcalf
2012-04-28 20:55                                                     ` Al Viro
2012-04-28 21:46                                                       ` Chris Metcalf
2012-04-29  0:55                                                         ` Al Viro
2012-04-28 18:51                                                           ` [PATCH v2] arch/tile: fix up some issues in calling do_work_pending() Chris Metcalf
2012-04-29  3:49                                                           ` [PATCH] arch/tile: avoid calling do_signal() after fork from a kernel thread Chris Metcalf
2012-04-28  2:42                                                 ` [RFC] TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, arch/*/*/*signal*.c and all such Al Viro
2012-04-28  3:32                                                   ` Al Viro [this message]
2012-04-28  3:36                                                     ` Al Viro
2012-04-29 16:33                                                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-29 16:18                                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-29 18:05                                                     ` Al Viro
2012-05-01  4:31                                                       ` Al Viro
2012-05-01  5:06                                                         ` Mike Frysinger
2012-05-01  5:52                                                           ` Al Viro
2012-05-02 17:24                                                             ` Al Viro
2012-05-02 18:30                                                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-29 16:41                                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-29 18:09                                           ` Al Viro
2012-04-29 18:25                                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-20  3:15               ` [RFC] situation with fput() locking (was Re: [PULL REQUEST] : ima-appraisal patches) Al Viro
2012-04-20 18:54           ` Hugh Dickins
2012-04-20 19:04             ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 19:18               ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20 19:32                 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-04-20 19:58                 ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 21:12                   ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20 22:13                     ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 22:35                       ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-27  7:35                         ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-04-27 17:34                           ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 18:52                             ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-04-27 19:15                               ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-04-30 14:32                             ` Mimi Zohar
2012-05-03  4:23                               ` James Morris
2012-04-20 19:37               ` Al Viro

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=20120428033245.GT6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox