[PATCH 1/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

[PATCH 1/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

[Kees Cook]

Fatal SIGSYS signals were not being delivered to pid namespace init
processes. Make sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these
cases.

Reported-by: Robert Święcki <robert@swiecki.net>
Suggested-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Fixes: 00b06da29cf9 ("signal: Add SA_IMMUTABLE to ensure forced siganls do not get changed")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 kernel/signal.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 38602738866e..33e3ee4f3383 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -1342,9 +1342,10 @@ force_sig_info_to_task(struct kernel_siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
 	}
 	/*
 	 * Don't clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE for traced tasks, users won't expect
-	 * debugging to leave init killable.
+	 * debugging to leave init killable, unless it is intended to exit.
 	 */
-	if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL && !t->ptrace)
+	if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL &&
+	    (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT)))
 		t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
 	ret = send_signal(sig, info, t, PIDTYPE_PID);
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

[Jann Horn]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:53 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> Fatal SIGSYS signals were not being delivered to pid namespace init
> processes. Make sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these
> cases.
>
> Reported-by: Robert Święcki <robert@swiecki.net>
> Suggested-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> Fixes: 00b06da29cf9 ("signal: Add SA_IMMUTABLE to ensure forced siganls do not get changed")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
>  kernel/signal.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index 38602738866e..33e3ee4f3383 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1342,9 +1342,10 @@ force_sig_info_to_task(struct kernel_siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
>         }
>         /*
>          * Don't clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE for traced tasks, users won't expect
> -        * debugging to leave init killable.
> +        * debugging to leave init killable, unless it is intended to exit.
>          */
> -       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL && !t->ptrace)
> +       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL &&
> +           (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT)))
>                 t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;

You're changing the subclause:

!t->ptrace

to:

(!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT))

which means that the change only affects cases where the process has a
ptracer, right? That's not the scenario the commit message is talking
about...

>         ret = send_signal(sig, info, t, PIDTYPE_PID);
>         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> --
> 2.30.2
>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

[Kees Cook]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 05:18:39PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:53 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Fatal SIGSYS signals were not being delivered to pid namespace init
> > processes. Make sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these
> > cases.
> >
> > Reported-by: Robert Święcki <robert@swiecki.net>
> > Suggested-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> > Fixes: 00b06da29cf9 ("signal: Add SA_IMMUTABLE to ensure forced siganls do not get changed")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/signal.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> > index 38602738866e..33e3ee4f3383 100644
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -1342,9 +1342,10 @@ force_sig_info_to_task(struct kernel_siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
> >         }
> >         /*
> >          * Don't clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE for traced tasks, users won't expect
> > -        * debugging to leave init killable.
> > +        * debugging to leave init killable, unless it is intended to exit.
> >          */
> > -       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL && !t->ptrace)
> > +       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL &&
> > +           (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT)))
> >                 t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> 
> You're changing the subclause:
> 
> !t->ptrace
> 
> to:
> 
> (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT))
> 
> which means that the change only affects cases where the process has a
> ptracer, right? That's not the scenario the commit message is talking
> about...

Sorry, yes, I was not as accurate as I should have been in the commit
log. I have changed it to:

Fatal SIGSYS signals (i.e. seccomp RET_KILL_* syscall filter actions)
were not being delivered to ptraced pid namespace init processes. Make
sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these cases.

> 
> >         ret = send_signal(sig, info, t, PIDTYPE_PID);
> >         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> > --
> > 2.30.2
> >

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

[Jann Horn]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 6:37 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 05:18:39PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:53 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > Fatal SIGSYS signals were not being delivered to pid namespace init
> > > processes. Make sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these
> > > cases.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Robert Święcki <robert@swiecki.net>
> > > Suggested-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> > > Fixes: 00b06da29cf9 ("signal: Add SA_IMMUTABLE to ensure forced siganls do not get changed")
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/signal.c | 5 +++--
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> > > index 38602738866e..33e3ee4f3383 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > > @@ -1342,9 +1342,10 @@ force_sig_info_to_task(struct kernel_siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
> > >         }
> > >         /*
> > >          * Don't clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE for traced tasks, users won't expect
> > > -        * debugging to leave init killable.
> > > +        * debugging to leave init killable, unless it is intended to exit.
> > >          */
> > > -       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL && !t->ptrace)
> > > +       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL &&
> > > +           (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT)))
> > >                 t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> >
> > You're changing the subclause:
> >
> > !t->ptrace
> >
> > to:
> >
> > (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT))
> >
> > which means that the change only affects cases where the process has a
> > ptracer, right? That's not the scenario the commit message is talking
> > about...
>
> Sorry, yes, I was not as accurate as I should have been in the commit
> log. I have changed it to:
>
> Fatal SIGSYS signals (i.e. seccomp RET_KILL_* syscall filter actions)
> were not being delivered to ptraced pid namespace init processes. Make
> sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these cases.

So basically force_sig_info() is trying to figure out whether
get_signal() will later on check for SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE (the SIG_DFL
case), and if so, it clears the flag from the target's signal_struct
that marks the process as unkillable?

This used to be:

if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
    t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;

Then someone noticed that in the ptrace case, the signal might not
actually end up being consumed by the target process, and added the
"&& !t->ptrace" clause in commit
eb61b5911bdc923875cde99eb25203a0e2b06d43.

And now Robert Swiecki noticed that that still didn't accurately model
what'll happen in get_signal().


This seems hacky to me, and also racy: What if, while you're going
through a SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS in an unkillable process, some
other thread e.g. concurrently changes the disposition of SIGSYS from
a custom handler to SIG_DFL?

Instead of trying to figure out whether the signal would have been
fatal without SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE, I think it would be better to find a
way to tell the signal-handling code that SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE should be
bypassed for this specific signal, or something along those lines...
but of course that's also kind of messy because the signal-sending
code might fall back to just using the pending signal mask on
allocation failure IIRC?

Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

[Eric W. Biederman]

Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 6:37 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 05:18:39PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:53 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > > Fatal SIGSYS signals were not being delivered to pid namespace init
>> > > processes. Make sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these
>> > > cases.
>> > >
>> > > Reported-by: Robert Święcki <robert@swiecki.net>
>> > > Suggested-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
>> > > Fixes: 00b06da29cf9 ("signal: Add SA_IMMUTABLE to ensure forced siganls do not get changed")
>> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>> > > ---
>> > >  kernel/signal.c | 5 +++--
>> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
>> > > index 38602738866e..33e3ee4f3383 100644
>> > > --- a/kernel/signal.c
>> > > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
>> > > @@ -1342,9 +1342,10 @@ force_sig_info_to_task(struct kernel_siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
>> > >         }
>> > >         /*
>> > >          * Don't clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE for traced tasks, users won't expect
>> > > -        * debugging to leave init killable.
>> > > +        * debugging to leave init killable, unless it is intended to exit.
>> > >          */
>> > > -       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL && !t->ptrace)
>> > > +       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL &&
>> > > +           (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT)))
>> > >                 t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
>> >
>> > You're changing the subclause:
>> >
>> > !t->ptrace
>> >
>> > to:
>> >
>> > (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT))
>> >
>> > which means that the change only affects cases where the process has a
>> > ptracer, right? That's not the scenario the commit message is talking
>> > about...
>>
>> Sorry, yes, I was not as accurate as I should have been in the commit
>> log. I have changed it to:
>>
>> Fatal SIGSYS signals (i.e. seccomp RET_KILL_* syscall filter actions)
>> were not being delivered to ptraced pid namespace init processes. Make
>> sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these cases.
>
> So basically force_sig_info() is trying to figure out whether
> get_signal() will later on check for SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE (the SIG_DFL
> case), and if so, it clears the flag from the target's signal_struct
> that marks the process as unkillable?
>
> This used to be:
>
> if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
>     t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
>
> Then someone noticed that in the ptrace case, the signal might not
> actually end up being consumed by the target process, and added the
> "&& !t->ptrace" clause in commit
> eb61b5911bdc923875cde99eb25203a0e2b06d43.
>
> And now Robert Swiecki noticed that that still didn't accurately model
> what'll happen in get_signal().
>
>
> This seems hacky to me, and also racy: What if, while you're going
> through a SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS in an unkillable process, some
> other thread e.g. concurrently changes the disposition of SIGSYS from
> a custom handler to SIG_DFL?
>
> Instead of trying to figure out whether the signal would have been
> fatal without SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE, I think it would be better to find a
> way to tell the signal-handling code that SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE should be
> bypassed for this specific signal, or something along those lines...
> but of course that's also kind of messy because the signal-sending
> code might fall back to just using the pending signal mask on
> allocation failure IIRC?

I am actively working on this.  I think I know how to get there but
it requires cleanups elsewhere as well, so it is not really an approach
that is appropriate for backporting.

The big bottleneck is that we need to make signals that trigger
coredumps eligible for short circuit delivery, and that takes a little
doing.

Eric

Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

[Kees Cook]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 07:01:39PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 6:37 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 05:18:39PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:53 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > Fatal SIGSYS signals were not being delivered to pid namespace init
> > > > processes. Make sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these
> > > > cases.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Robert Święcki <robert@swiecki.net>
> > > > Suggested-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> > > > Fixes: 00b06da29cf9 ("signal: Add SA_IMMUTABLE to ensure forced siganls do not get changed")
> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/signal.c | 5 +++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> > > > index 38602738866e..33e3ee4f3383 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > > > @@ -1342,9 +1342,10 @@ force_sig_info_to_task(struct kernel_siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
> > > >         }
> > > >         /*
> > > >          * Don't clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE for traced tasks, users won't expect
> > > > -        * debugging to leave init killable.
> > > > +        * debugging to leave init killable, unless it is intended to exit.
> > > >          */
> > > > -       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL && !t->ptrace)
> > > > +       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL &&
> > > > +           (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT)))
> > > >                 t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> > >
> > > You're changing the subclause:
> > >
> > > !t->ptrace
> > >
> > > to:
> > >
> > > (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT))
> > >
> > > which means that the change only affects cases where the process has a
> > > ptracer, right? That's not the scenario the commit message is talking
> > > about...
> >
> > Sorry, yes, I was not as accurate as I should have been in the commit
> > log. I have changed it to:
> >
> > Fatal SIGSYS signals (i.e. seccomp RET_KILL_* syscall filter actions)
> > were not being delivered to ptraced pid namespace init processes. Make
> > sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these cases.
> 
> So basically force_sig_info() is trying to figure out whether
> get_signal() will later on check for SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE (the SIG_DFL
> case), and if so, it clears the flag from the target's signal_struct
> that marks the process as unkillable?
> 
> This used to be:
> 
> if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
>     t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> 
> Then someone noticed that in the ptrace case, the signal might not
> actually end up being consumed by the target process, and added the
> "&& !t->ptrace" clause in commit
> eb61b5911bdc923875cde99eb25203a0e2b06d43.
> 
> And now Robert Swiecki noticed that that still didn't accurately model
> what'll happen in get_signal().
> 
> This seems hacky to me, and also racy: What if, while you're going
> through a SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS in an unkillable process, some
> other thread e.g. concurrently changes the disposition of SIGSYS from
> a custom handler to SIG_DFL?

Do you mean after force_sig_info_to_task() has finished but before
get_signal()? SA_IMMUTABLE will block changes to the action.

If you mean before force_sig_info_to_task(), I don't see how that's
possible since it's under lock:

        if (blocked || ignored || (handler != HANDLER_CURRENT)) {
                action->sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
                if (handler == HANDLER_EXIT)
                        action->sa.sa_flags |= SA_IMMUTABLE;
	...
        if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL &&
            (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT)))
                t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;

Given handler = HANDLER_EXIT, it'll always be SIG_DFL.

> Instead of trying to figure out whether the signal would have been
> fatal without SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE, I think it would be better to find a
> way to tell the signal-handling code that SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE should be
> bypassed for this specific signal, or something along those lines...
> but of course that's also kind of messy because the signal-sending
> code might fall back to just using the pending signal mask on
> allocation failure IIRC?

My original patch aimed that way:

diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 9b04631acde8..c124a09de6de 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -2787,7 +2787,8 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
 		 * case, the signal cannot be dropped.
 		 */
 		if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) &&
-				!sig_kernel_only(signr))
+				!sig_kernel_only(signr) &&
+				!(ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_IMMUTABLE))
 			continue;
 
 		if (sig_kernel_stop(signr)) {

But I don't think there's a race, and Eric's suggestion seemed
better in the sense that the state change is entirely contained by
force_sig_info_to_task().

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

[Jann Horn]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 10:09 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 07:01:39PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 6:37 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 05:18:39PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:53 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > Fatal SIGSYS signals were not being delivered to pid namespace init
> > > > > processes. Make sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these
> > > > > cases.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: Robert Święcki <robert@swiecki.net>
> > > > > Suggested-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> > > > > Fixes: 00b06da29cf9 ("signal: Add SA_IMMUTABLE to ensure forced siganls do not get changed")
> > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  kernel/signal.c | 5 +++--
> > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> > > > > index 38602738866e..33e3ee4f3383 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > > > > @@ -1342,9 +1342,10 @@ force_sig_info_to_task(struct kernel_siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
> > > > >         }
> > > > >         /*
> > > > >          * Don't clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE for traced tasks, users won't expect
> > > > > -        * debugging to leave init killable.
> > > > > +        * debugging to leave init killable, unless it is intended to exit.
> > > > >          */
> > > > > -       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL && !t->ptrace)
> > > > > +       if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL &&
> > > > > +           (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT)))
> > > > >                 t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> > > >
> > > > You're changing the subclause:
> > > >
> > > > !t->ptrace
> > > >
> > > > to:
> > > >
> > > > (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT))
> > > >
> > > > which means that the change only affects cases where the process has a
> > > > ptracer, right? That's not the scenario the commit message is talking
> > > > about...
> > >
> > > Sorry, yes, I was not as accurate as I should have been in the commit
> > > log. I have changed it to:
> > >
> > > Fatal SIGSYS signals (i.e. seccomp RET_KILL_* syscall filter actions)
> > > were not being delivered to ptraced pid namespace init processes. Make
> > > sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these cases.
> >
> > So basically force_sig_info() is trying to figure out whether
> > get_signal() will later on check for SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE (the SIG_DFL
> > case), and if so, it clears the flag from the target's signal_struct
> > that marks the process as unkillable?
> >
> > This used to be:
> >
> > if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
> >     t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> >
> > Then someone noticed that in the ptrace case, the signal might not
> > actually end up being consumed by the target process, and added the
> > "&& !t->ptrace" clause in commit
> > eb61b5911bdc923875cde99eb25203a0e2b06d43.
> >
> > And now Robert Swiecki noticed that that still didn't accurately model
> > what'll happen in get_signal().
> >
> > This seems hacky to me, and also racy: What if, while you're going
> > through a SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS in an unkillable process, some
> > other thread e.g. concurrently changes the disposition of SIGSYS from
> > a custom handler to SIG_DFL?
>
> Do you mean after force_sig_info_to_task() has finished but before
> get_signal()? SA_IMMUTABLE will block changes to the action.

Yeah, that's what I meant.
Thanks, I missed SA_IMMUTABLE. Ugh, this is not pretty code...

Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

[Eric W. Biederman]

Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:

> Fatal SIGSYS signals were not being delivered to pid namespace init
> processes . Make sure the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE doesn't get set for these
           ^ when ptraced.
> cases.



Reviewed-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>

I have pointed out a few nits in the wording but otherwise this looks good.
>
> Reported-by: Robert Święcki <robert@swiecki.net>
> Suggested-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> Fixes: 00b06da29cf9 ("signal: Add SA_IMMUTABLE to ensure forced siganls do not get changed")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
>  kernel/signal.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index 38602738866e..33e3ee4f3383 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1342,9 +1342,10 @@ force_sig_info_to_task(struct kernel_siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
>  	}
>  	/*
>  	 * Don't clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE for traced tasks, users won't expect
> -	 * debugging to leave init killable.
> +	 * debugging to leave init killable, unless it is intended to exit.
perhaps                                     ^ HANDLER_EXIT is always fatal.
>  	 */
> -	if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL && !t->ptrace)
> +	if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL &&
> +	    (!t->ptrace || (handler == HANDLER_EXIT)))
>  		t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
>  	ret = send_signal(sig, info, t, PIDTYPE_PID);
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);

Eric

[PATCH 2/3] seccomp: Invalidate seccomp mode to catch death failures

[Kees Cook]

If seccomp tries to kill a process, it should never see that process
again. To enforce this proactively, switch the mode to something
impossible. If encountered: WARN, reject all syscalls, and attempt to
kill the process again even harder.

Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Fixes: 8112c4f140fa ("seccomp: remove 2-phase API")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 kernel/seccomp.c | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
index 4d8f44a17727..db10e73d06e0 100644
--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@
 #include <linux/syscalls.h>
 #include <linux/sysctl.h>
 
+/* Not exposed in headers: strictly internal use only. */
+#define SECCOMP_MODE_DEAD	(SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER + 1)
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
 #include <asm/syscall.h>
 #endif
@@ -1010,6 +1013,7 @@ static void __secure_computing_strict(int this_syscall)
 #ifdef SECCOMP_DEBUG
 	dump_stack();
 #endif
+	current->seccomp.mode = SECCOMP_MODE_DEAD;
 	seccomp_log(this_syscall, SIGKILL, SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD, true);
 	do_exit(SIGKILL);
 }
@@ -1261,6 +1265,7 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const struct seccomp_data *sd,
 	case SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD:
 	case SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS:
 	default:
+		current->seccomp.mode = SECCOMP_MODE_DEAD;
 		seccomp_log(this_syscall, SIGSYS, action, true);
 		/* Dump core only if this is the last remaining thread. */
 		if (action != SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD ||
@@ -1309,6 +1314,11 @@ int __secure_computing(const struct seccomp_data *sd)
 		return 0;
 	case SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER:
 		return __seccomp_filter(this_syscall, sd, false);
+	/* Surviving SECCOMP_RET_KILL_* must be proactively impossible. */
+	case SECCOMP_MODE_DEAD:
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
+		do_exit(SIGKILL);
+		return -1;
 	default:
 		BUG();
 	}
-- 
2.30.2