On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 9:43 PM Bae, Chang Seok
<chang.seok....@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 2020, at 10:41, Jann Horn <ja...@google.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:22 PM Bae, Chang Seok
> > <chang.seok....@intel.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 20, 2020, at 15:04, Jann Horn <ja...@google.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 8:40 PM Chang S. Bae <chang.seok....@intel.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> >>>> index ee6f1ceaa7a2..cee41d684dc2 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> >>>> @@ -251,8 +251,13 @@ get_sigframe(struct k_sigaction *ka, struct pt_regs
> >>>> *regs, size_t frame_size,
> >>>>
> >>>> /* This is the X/Open sanctioned signal stack switching. */
> >>>> if (ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_ONSTACK) {
> >>>> - if (sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0)
> >>>> + if (sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0) {
> >>>> + /* If the altstack might overflow, die with
> >>>> SIGSEGV: */
> >>>> + if (!altstack_size_ok(current))
> >>>> + return (void __user *)-1L;
> >>>> +
> >>>> sp = current->sas_ss_sp + current->sas_ss_size;
> >>>> + }
> >>>
> >>> A couple lines further down, we have this (since commit 14fc9fbc700d):
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> * If we are on the alternate signal stack and would overflow it,
> >>> don't.
> >>> * Return an always-bogus address instead so we will die with
> >>> SIGSEGV.
> >>> */
> >>> if (onsigstack && !likely(on_sig_stack(sp)))
> >>> return (void __user *)-1L;
> >>>
> >>> Is that not working?
> >>
> >> onsigstack is set at the beginning here. If a signal hits under normal
> >> stack,
> >> this flag is not set. Then it will miss the overflow.
> >>
> >> The added check allows to detect the sigaltstack overflow (always).
> >
> > Ah, I think I understand what you're trying to do. But wouldn't the
> > better approach be to ensure that the existing on_sig_stack() check is
> > also used if we just switched to the signal stack? Something like:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> > index be0d7d4152ec..2f57842fb4d6 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ get_sigframe(struct k_sigaction *ka, struct
> > pt_regs *regs, size_t frame_size,
> > unsigned long math_size = 0;
> > unsigned long sp = regs->sp;
> > unsigned long buf_fx = 0;
> > - int onsigstack = on_sig_stack(sp);
> > + bool onsigstack = on_sig_stack(sp);
> > int ret;
> >
> > /* redzone */
> > @@ -246,8 +246,10 @@ get_sigframe(struct k_sigaction *ka, struct
> > pt_regs *regs, size_t frame_size,
> >
> > /* This is the X/Open sanctioned signal stack switching. */
> > if (ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_ONSTACK) {
> > - if (sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0)
> > + if (sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0) {
> > sp = current->sas_ss_sp + current->sas_ss_size;
> > + onsigstack = true;
> > + }
> > } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32) &&
> > !onsigstack &&
> > regs->ss != __USER_DS &&
>
> Yeah, but wouldn't it better to avoid overwriting user data if we can? The old
> check raises segfault *after* overwritten.
Where is that overwrite happening? Between the point where your check
happens, and the point where the old check is, the only calls are to
fpu__alloc_mathframe() and align_sigframe(), right?
fpu__alloc_mathframe() just does some size calculations and doesn't
write anything. align_sigframe() also just does size calculations. Am
I missing something?
