lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: mm: abort uaccess retries upon fatal signal
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:45:24AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:42:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:58:49PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:19:22PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > When there's a fatal signal pending, arm64's do_page_fault()
> > > > implementation returns 0. The intent is that we'll return to the
> > > > faulting userspace instruction, delivering the signal on the way.
> > > >
> > > > However, if we take a fatal signal during fixing up a uaccess, this
> > > > results in a return to the faulting kernel instruction, which will be
> > > > instantly retried, resulting in the same fault being taken forever. As
> > > > the task never reaches userspace, the signal is not delivered, and the
> > > > task is left unkillable. While the task is stuck in this state, it can
> > > > inhibit the forward progress of the system.
> > > >
> > > > To avoid this, we must ensure that when a fatal signal is pending, we
> > > > apply any necessary fixup for a faulting kernel instruction. Thus we
> > > > will return to an error path, and it is up to that code to make forward
> > > > progress towards delivering the fatal signal.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>
> > > > Tested-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 5 ++++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > > > index 37b95df..3952d5e 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > > > @@ -397,8 +397,11 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
> > > > * signal first. We do not need to release the mmap_sem because it
> > > > * would already be released in __lock_page_or_retry in mm/filemap.c.
> > > > */
> > > > - if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) && fatal_signal_pending(current))
> > > > + if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) && fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> > > > + if (!user_mode(regs))
> > > > + goto no_context;
> > > > return 0;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > This will need rebasing at -rc1 (take a look at current HEAD).
> > >
> > > Also, I think it introduces a weird corner case where we take a page fault
> > > when writing the signal frame to the user stack to deliver a SIGSEGV. If
> > > we end up with VM_FAULT_RETRY and somebody has sent a SIGKILL to the task,
> > > then we'll fail setup_sigframe and force an un-handleable SIGSEGV instead
> > > of SIGKILL.
> > >
> > > The end result (task is killed) is the same, but the fatal signal is wrong.
> >
> > That doesn't seem to be the case, testing on v4.13-rc5.
> >
> > I used sigaltstack() to use the userfaultfd region as signal stack,
> > registerd a SIGSEGV handler, and dereferenced NULL. The task locks up,
> > but when killed with a SIGINT or SIGKILL, the exit status reflects that
> > signal, rather than the SIGSEGV.
> >
> > If I move the SIGINT handler onto the userfaultfd-monitored stack, then
> > delivering SIGINT hangs, but can be killed with SIGKILL, and the exit
> > status reflects that SIGKILL.
> >
> > As you say, it does look like we'd try to set up a deferred SIGSEGV for
> > the failed signal delivery.
> >
> > I haven't yet figured out exactly how that works; I'll keep digging.
>
> The SEGV makes it all the way into do_group_exit, but then signal_group_exit
> is set and the exit_code is overridden with SIGKILL at the last minute (see
> complete_signal).

Unfortunately, this last minute is too late for print-fatal-signals.
With print-fatal-signals enabled, this patch leads to misleading
"potentially unexpected fatal signal 11" warnings if a process is
SIGKILL'd at the right time.

I've seen it without userfaultfd, but it's easiest reproduced by
patching Mark's original test code [1] with the following patch and
simply running "pkill -WINCH foo; pkill -KILL foo". This results in:

foo: potentially unexpected fatal signal 11.
CPU: 1 PID: 1793 Comm: foo Not tainted 4.9.58-devel #3
task: b3534780 task.stack: b4b7c000
PC is at 0x76effb60
LR is at 0x4227f4
pc : [<76effb60>] lr : [<004227f4>] psr: 600b0010
sp : 7eaf7bb4 ip : 00000000 fp : 00000000
r10: 00000001 r9 : 00000003 r8 : 76fcd000
r7 : 0000001d r6 : 76fd0cf0 r5 : 7eaf7c08 r4 : 00000000
r3 : 00000000 r2 : 00000000 r1 : 7eaf7a88 r0 : fffffffc
Flags: nZCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode USER_32 ISA ARM Segment user
Control: 10c5387d Table: 3357404a DAC: 00000055
CPU: 1 PID: 1793 Comm: foo Not tainted 4.9.58-devel #3
[<801113f0>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<8010cfb0>] (show_stack+0x18/0x1c)
[<8010cfb0>] (show_stack) from [<8039725c>] (dump_stack+0x84/0x98)
[<8039725c>] (dump_stack) from [<8012f448>] (get_signal+0x384/0x684)
[<8012f448>] (get_signal) from [<8010c2ec>] (do_signal+0xcc/0x470)
[<8010c2ec>] (do_signal) from [<8010c868>] (do_work_pending+0xb8/0xc8)
[<8010c868>] (do_work_pending) from [<801086d4>] (slow_work_pending+0xc/0x20)

This is ARM and I haven't tested ARM64, but the same problem even exists
on x86.

--- foo.c.orig 2017-11-13 23:45:47.802167284 +0100
+++ foo.c 2017-11-14 07:16:13.906363466 +0100
@@ -6,6 +6,11 @@
#include <sys/syscall.h>
#include <sys/vfs.h>
#include <unistd.h>
+#include <signal.h>
+
+static void handler(int sig)
+{
+}

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
@@ -47,13 +52,17 @@
if (ret < 0)
return errno;

+ sigaltstack(&(stack_t){.ss_sp = mem, .ss_size = pagesz}, NULL);
+ sigaction(SIGWINCH, &(struct sigaction){ .sa_handler = handler, .sa_flags = SA_ONSTACK, }, NULL);
+
/*
* Force an arbitrary uaccess to memory monitored by the userfaultfd.
* This will block, but when a SIGKILL is sent, will consume all
* available CPU time without being killed, and may inhibit forward
* progress of the system.
*/
- ret = fstatfs(0, (struct statfs *)mem);
+ // ret = fstatfs(0, (struct statfs *)mem);
+ pause();

return 0;
}
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1499782590-31366-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-14 07:47    [W:0.049 / U:1.056 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site