Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals/sigaltstack: If SS_AUTODISARM, bypass on_sig_stack

[Stas Sergeev <stsp-cmBhpYW9OiY@public.gmane.org>]

03.05.2016 20:31, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> If a signal stack is set up with SS_AUTODISARM, then the kernel
> inherently avoids incorrectly resetting the signal stack if signals
> recurse: the signal stack will be reset on the first signal
> delivery.  This means that we don't need check the stack pointer
> when delivering signals if SS_AUTODISARM is set.
>
> This will make segmented x86 programs more robust: currently there's
> a hole that could be triggered if ESP/RSP appears to point to the
> signal stack but actually doesn't due to a nonzero SS base.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stas Sergeev <stsp-cmBhpYW9OiY@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar-gVpy/LI/lHzQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Amanieu d'Antras <amanieu-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto-kltTT9wpgjJwATOyAt5JVQ@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp-Gina5bIWoIWzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Josh Triplett <josh-iaAMLnmF4UmaiuxdJuQwMA@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov-XoJtRXgx1JseBXzfvpsJ4g@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer-96lFi9zoCfxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Paul Moore <pmoore-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard-/L3Ra7n9ekc@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkh-JPH+aEBZ4P+UEJcrhfAQsw@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>   include/linux/sched.h | 12 ++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 2950c5cd3005..8f03a93348b9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -2576,6 +2576,18 @@ static inline int kill_cad_pid(int sig, int priv)
>    */
>   static inline int on_sig_stack(unsigned long sp)
>   {
> +	/*
> +	 * If the signal stack is AUTODISARM then, by construction, we
> +	 * can't be on the signal stack unless user code deliberately set
> +	 * SS_AUTODISARM when we were already on the it.
"on the it" -> "on it".

Anyway, I am a bit puzzled with this patch.
You say "unless user code deliberately set
SS_AUTODISARM when we were already on the it"
so what happens in case it actually does?

Without your patch: if user sets up the same sas - no stack switch.
if user sets up different sas - stack switch on nested signal.

With your patch: stack switch in any case, so if user
set up same sas - stack corruption by nested signal.

Or am I missing the intention?