fix SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE && SIGKILL interaction
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAP045Ap9Xv67GaeskDt_gAajp1Cni_S0Z0u_vsuw_ptRUuJD6Q@mail.gmail.com
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
cover fix SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE && SIGKILL interaction
Quoted 3 lines · Oleg Nesterov
I need to write the changelog, and perhaps even split this small patch for better documentation.
OK, it is not clear if I answered Eric's concerns or not, let me send the patches for review anyway. I tried to document every change in signal.c.
Oleg.
kernel/signal.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
PATCH 1/3 protect the traced SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE tasks from SIGKILL
The comment in sig_ignored() says "Tracers may want to know about even ignored signals" but SIGKILL can not be reported to debugger and it is just wrong to return 0 in this case: SIGKILL should only kill the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE task if it comes from the parent ns.
Change sig_ignored() to ignore ->ptrace if sig == SIGKILL and rely on sig_task_ignored().
SISGTOP coming from within the namespace is not really right too but at least debugger can intercept it, and we can't drop it here because this will break "gdb -p 1": ptrace_attach() won't work. Perhaps we will add another ->ptrace check later, we will see.
--- kernel/signal.c | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
kernel/signal.c +7 -5
@@ -94,13 +94,15 @@ static int sig_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig, bool force)if (sigismember (&t->blocked, sig) ||sigismember (&t->real_blocked, sig))return 0 ; -if (!sig_task_ignored (t, sig, force)) -return 0 ; -/* -* Tracers may want to know about even ignored signals. +* Tracers may want to know about even ignored signal unless it +* is SIGKILL which can't be reported anyway but can be ignored +* by SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE task. */ -return !t->ptrace; +if (t->ptrace && sig !=SIGKILL ) +return 0 ; + +return sig_task_ignored (t, sig, force); }/*
Signature · 1 line
2.5.0
PATCH 2/3 protect the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE tasks from !sig_kernel_only() signals
In reply to Oleg NesterovChange sig_task_ignored() to drop the SIG_DFL && !sig_kernel_only() signals even if force == T. This simplifies the next change and this matches the same check in get_signal() which will drop these signals anyway.
--- kernel/signal.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
kernel/signal.c +1 -1
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static int sig_task_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig, bool force) handler =sig_handler (t, sig);if (unlikely (t->signal->flags &SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE ) && - handler ==SIG_DFL && !force) + handler ==SIG_DFL && !(force &&sig_kernel_only (sig)))return 1 ;return sig_handler_ignored (handler, sig);
Signature · 1 line
2.5.0
PATCH 3/3 remove the no longer needed SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()
In reply to Oleg Nesterovcomplete_signal() checks SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE before it starts to destroy the thread group, today this is wrong in many ways.
If nothing else, fatal_signal_pending() should always imply that the whole thread group (except ->group_exit_task if it is not NULL) is killed, this check breaks the rule.
After the previous changes we can rely on sig_task_ignored(); sig_fatal(sig) && SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE can only be true if we actually want to kill this task and sig == SIGKILL OR it is traced and debugger can intercept the signal.
This should hopefully fix the problem reported by Dmitry. This test-case
static int init(void *arg)
{
for (;;)
pause();
}
int main(void)
{
char stack[16 * 1024];
for (;;) {
int pid = clone(init, stack + sizeof(stack)/2,
CLONE_NEWPID | SIGCHLD, NULL);
assert(pid > 0);
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, pid, 0, 0) == 0);
assert(waitpid(-1, NULL, WSTOPPED) == pid);
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_DETACH, pid, 0, SIGSTOP) == 0);
assert(syscall(__NR_tkill, pid, SIGKILL) == 0);
assert(pid == wait(NULL));
}
}triggers the WARN_ON_ONCE(!(task->jobctl & JOBCTL_STOP_PENDING)) in task_participate_group_stop(). do_signal_stop()->signal_group_exit() checks SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT and return false, but task_set_jobctl_pending() checks fatal_signal_pending() and does not set JOBCTL_STOP_PENDING.
And his should fix the minor security problem reported by Kyle, SECCOMP_RET_TRACE can miss fatal_signal_pending() the same way if the task is the root of a pid namespace.
--- kernel/signal.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
kernel/signal.c +2 -2
@@ -931,9 +931,9 @@ static void complete_signal(int sig, struct task_struct *p, int group)* then start taking the whole group down immediately. */ if (sig_fatal (p, sig) && - !(signal->flags & (SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE |SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT )) && + !(signal->flags &SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT ) && !sigismember (&t->real_blocked, sig) && - (sig ==SIGKILL || !t->ptrace)) { + (sig ==SIGKILL || !p->ptrace)) {/* * This signal will be fatal to the whole group. */
Signature · 1 line
2.5.0
Re: [PATCH 3/3] remove the no longer needed SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()
Quoted 42 lines · Oleg Nesterov
complete_signal()checksSIGNAL_UNKILLABLEbefore it starts to destroy the thread group, today this is wrong in many ways.If nothing else,
fatal_signal_pending()should always imply that the whole thread group (except ->group_exit_task if it is not NULL) is killed, this check breaks the rule.After the previous changes we can rely on
sig_task_ignored();sig_fatal(sig)&&SIGNAL_UNKILLABLEcan only be true if we actually want to kill this task and sig == SIGKILL OR it is traced and debugger can intercept the signal.This should hopefully fix the problem reported by Dmitry. This test-case
static int init(void *arg) { for (;;) pause(); } int main(void) { char stack[16 * 1024]; for (;;) { int pid = clone(init, stack + sizeof(stack)/2, CLONE_NEWPID | SIGCHLD, NULL); assert(pid > 0); assert(ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, pid, 0, 0) == 0); assert(waitpid(-1, NULL, WSTOPPED) == pid); assert(ptrace(PTRACE_DETACH, pid, 0, SIGSTOP) == 0); assert(syscall(__NR_tkill, pid, SIGKILL) == 0); assert(pid == wait(NULL)); } }triggers the
WARN_ON_ONCE(!(task->jobctl & JOBCTL_STOP_PENDING))intask_participate_group_stop(). do_signal_stop()->signal_group_exit() checksSIGNAL_GROUP_EXITand return false, buttask_set_jobctl_pending()checksfatal_signal_pending()and does not setJOBCTL_STOP_PENDING.
Quoted 7 lines
And his should fix the minor security problem reported by Kyle,
SECCOMP_RET_TRACEcan missfatal_signal_pending()the same way if the task is the root of a pid namespace.Reported-by Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]>Reported-by Kyle Huey <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
Thanks for digging through this! Two birds, one stone, etc. :)
-Kees
Quoted 24 lines
--- kernel/signal.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)kernel/signal.c +2
-3@@ -931,9 +931,9 @@ static void complete_signal(int sig, struct task_struct *p, int group)* then start taking the whole group down immediately. */ if (sig_fatal (p, sig) && - !(signal->flags & (SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE |SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT )) && + !(signal->flags &SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT ) && !sigismember (&t->real_blocked, sig) && - (sig ==SIGKILL || !t->ptrace)) { + (sig ==SIGKILL || !p->ptrace)) {/* * This signal will be fatal to the whole group. */ --2.5.0
Signature · 2 lines
Kees Cook Pixel Security
ping...
Dmitry confirms this actually fixes the problem reported by syzkaller we discussed in another thread.
Quoted 13 lines · Oleg Nesterov
Quoted 3 lines · Oleg Nesterov
I need to write the changelog, and perhaps even split this small patch for better documentation.
OK, it is not clear if I answered Eric's concerns or not, let me send the patches for review anyway. I tried to document every change in
signal.c.Oleg.
kernel/signal.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Quoted 21 lines · Oleg Nesterov
ping...
Dmitry confirms this actually fixes the problem reported by syzkaller we discussed in another thread.
Quoted 13 lines · Oleg Nesterov
Quoted 3 lines · Oleg Nesterov
I need to write the changelog, and perhaps even split this small patch for better documentation.
OK, it is not clear if I answered Eric's concerns or not, let me send the patches for review anyway. I tried to document every change in
signal.c.Oleg.
kernel/signal.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
I can confirm that your patches fix the issue I reported as well.
- Kyle