Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:02:08 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] signal: always clear sa_restorer on execve | From | Kees Cook <> |
| |
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: > Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes: > >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 03/11, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> >>>> When the new signal handlers are set up for a fork, the location of >>>> sa_restorer is not cleared, leaking a parent process's address space >>>> location to children. This allows for a potential bypass of the parent's >>>> ASLR by examining the sa_restorer value returned when calling sigaction(). >>> >>> I don't understand. >>> >>> fork() should not change restorer/etc, and the child has the same address >>> space anyway. There is no any leak and the patch can't make any difference >>> in this case because flush_signal_handlers() is not called by fork(). >> >> I probably failed to explain this correctly. From the perspective of >> what should be considered "secret", it only matters across the exec, >> not the fork (since the VMAs haven't changed until the exec). But the >> info leak is easy to see, and this patch fixes it. As you say, since >> other things were reset, so should sa_restorer. > > At the very least please correct the explanation in your patch > description. > > Too often I have had seen a confused patch description, indicate > confusion elsewhere in the patch. Let's make it easy for reviewers > and future bisectors to understand what is intended.
Sounds good. I'll re-attempt and send a v2.
>>>> @@ -485,6 +485,9 @@ flush_signal_handlers(struct task_struct *t, int force_default) >>>> if (force_default || ka->sa.sa_handler != SIG_IGN) >>>> ka->sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL; >>>> ka->sa.sa_flags = 0; >>>> +#ifdef __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORER >>>> + ka->sa.sa_restorer = NULL; >>>> +#endif > > Also I am inclined to suggest this should be an inline function in a > header. > clear_sa_restorer(ka); > > Just so we don't litter the code with #ifdefs.
Yeah, I took a look, and the code was already using the __ARCH_HAS... ifdef, so I went with that. I can respin with some kind of set_sa_restorer() for the other places sa_restorer is used.
-Kees
-- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security
| |