lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] alpha: fix crash if pthread_create races with signal delivery
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 02:01:34PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On alpha, a process will crash if it attempts to start a thread and a
> signal is delivered at the same time. The crash can be reproduced with
> this program: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2014-11/msg00473.html
>
> The reason for the crash is this:
> * we call the clone syscall
> * we go to the function copy_process
> * copy process calls copy_thread_tls, it is a wrapper around copy_thread
> * copy_thread sets the tls pointer: childti->pcb.unique = regs->r20
> * copy_thread sets regs->r20 to zero
> * we go back to copy_process
> * copy process checks "if (signal_pending(current))" and returns
> -ERESTARTNOINTR
> * the clone syscall is restarted, but this time, regs->r20 is zero, so
> the new thread is created with zero tls pointer
> * the new thread crashes in start_thread when attempting to access tls
>
> The comment in the code says that setting the register r20 is some
> compatibility with OSF/1. But OSF/1 doesn't use the CLONE_SETTLS flag, so
> we don't have to zero r20 if CLONE_SETTLS is set. This patch fixes the bug
> by zeroing regs->r20 only if CLONE_SETTLS is not set.

This bug was identified some three years ago; it triggers a failure
in the glibc nptl/tst-eintr3 test. See:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-alpha&m=140610647213217&w=2

and a fix was proposed by RTH, namely:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-alpha&m=140675667715872&w=2

but was never included in the kernel because someone objected to
breaking the ability to run OSF/1 executables. That patch also
deleted the line to set childregs->r20 to 1 which I mark below.

>
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>
> ---
> arch/alpha/kernel/process.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-stable/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-stable.orig/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c 2017-12-31 17:42:12.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-stable/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c 2018-01-02 18:06:24.000000000 +0100
> @@ -265,12 +265,13 @@ copy_thread(unsigned long clone_flags, u
> application calling fork. */
> if (clone_flags & CLONE_SETTLS)
> childti->pcb.unique = regs->r20;
> + else
> + regs->r20 = 0; /* OSF/1 has some strange fork() semantics. */
> childti->pcb.usp = usp ?: rdusp();
> *childregs = *regs;
> childregs->r0 = 0;
> childregs->r19 = 0;
> childregs->r20 = 1; /* OSF/1 has some strange fork() semantics. */

This line. Is it not also problematic?

Cheers
Michael.

> - regs->r20 = 0;
> stack = ((struct switch_stack *) regs) - 1;
> *childstack = *stack;
> childstack->r26 = (unsigned long) ret_from_fork;
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-alpha" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-03 10:51    [W:0.042 / U:39.036 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site