From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
"Robert Święcki" <robert@swiecki.net>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@amacapital.net>,
"Will Drewry" <wad@chromium.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
"Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:09:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202202101254.1174AB2B@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez3fG7S1dfE2-JAtyOZUK=0_iZ03scf+oD6gwVyD1Qp33g@mail.gmail.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-10 21:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-10 2:53 [PATCH 0/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE Kees Cook
2022-02-10 2:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] " Kees Cook
2022-02-10 16:18 ` Jann Horn
2022-02-10 17:37 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-10 18:01 ` Jann Horn
2022-02-10 18:12 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-02-10 21:09 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2022-02-11 20:15 ` Jann Horn
2022-02-10 18:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-02-10 2:53 ` [PATCH 2/3] seccomp: Invalidate seccomp mode to catch death failures Kees Cook
2022-02-10 2:53 ` [PATCH 3/3] samples/seccomp: Adjust sample to also provide kill option Kees Cook
2022-02-10 18:17 ` [PATCH 0/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE Eric W. Biederman
2022-02-10 18:41 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-10 18:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-02-10 20:43 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-10 22:48 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-02-11 1:26 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-11 1:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-02-11 2:53 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-11 12:54 ` Robert Święcki
2022-02-11 17:46 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-02-11 18:57 ` Robert Święcki
2022-02-11 20:01 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-11 19:58 ` Kees Cook
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=202202101254.1174AB2B@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=robert@swiecki.net \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wad@chromium.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).