lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/fault: Fix wrong signal when vsyscall fails with pkey
From
Date
On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 10:57 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> When emulating vsyscall, the kernel may fail to access user-given memory
>> pages that are protected by pkey. In such a case, the kernel should send a
>> SIGSEGV signal with si_code=SEGV_PKUERR and si_pkey=pkey.
>
> This could use a bit more context.
>
> First of all this is for user address space faults in the
> do_user_addr_fault() path. Second, the buggy code is under a
> !user_mode() check, so this must be a kernel fault in the user address
> space. Third, the only notice this problem when the page fault handler
> ends up delivering a signal as a result of the fault. Most cases will
> simply return an error code to the faulting kernel code which will see
> -EFAULT come back from copy_to/from_user() and friends.
>
> The *only* condition in which we generate that signal from the fault
> handler is when current->thread.sig_on_uaccess_err=1, and the only place
> that gets used is in emulate_vsyscall().
>
> This makes me want to add some code that tickles vsyscall emulation in
> the pkey selftests, but I think I'll resist the urge for now. :)
>
> Is that all correct?

Right.

>> So a new parameter "pkey" is added to kernelmode_fixup_or_oops to fix it.
>
> Yeah, I think that's the right fix. You also need this:
>
> Fixes: 5042d40a264c ("x86/fault: Bypass no_context() for implicit kernel
> faults from usermode")
>
> I believe that's where this issue originated.

Yeah, we need to add it.

> How did you find this, by the way?

I was learning about memory protection key. So I read the related code in
kernel and spotted this.

>> arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>> index b2eefdefc108..883294282e1e 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>> @@ -710,7 +710,8 @@ page_fault_oops(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
>>
>> static noinline void
>> kernelmode_fixup_or_oops(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
>> - unsigned long address, int signal, int si_code)
>> + unsigned long address, int signal, int si_code,
>> + u32 pkey)
>> {
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(user_mode(regs));
>>
>> @@ -735,8 +736,12 @@ kernelmode_fixup_or_oops(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
>>
>> set_signal_archinfo(address, error_code);
>>
>> - /* XXX: hwpoison faults will set the wrong code. */
>> - force_sig_fault(signal, si_code, (void __user *)address);
>> + if (si_code == SEGV_PKUERR) {
>> + force_sig_pkuerr((void __user *)address, pkey);
>> + } else {
>> + /* XXX: hwpoison faults will set the wrong code. */
>> + force_sig_fault(signal, si_code, (void __user *)address);
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -798,7 +803,8 @@ __bad_area_nosemaphore(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
>> struct task_struct *tsk = current;
>>
>> if (!user_mode(regs)) {
>> - kernelmode_fixup_or_oops(regs, error_code, address, pkey, si_code);
>> + kernelmode_fixup_or_oops(regs, error_code, address,
>> + SIGSEGV, si_code, pkey);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -930,7 +936,8 @@ do_sigbus(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code, unsigned long address,
>> {
>> /* Kernel mode? Handle exceptions or die: */
>> if (!user_mode(regs)) {
>> - kernelmode_fixup_or_oops(regs, error_code, address, SIGBUS, BUS_ADRERR);
>> + kernelmode_fixup_or_oops(regs, error_code, address,
>> + SIGBUS, BUS_ADRERR, 0);
>> return;
>> }
>
> Could we please use ARCH_DEFAULT_PKEY instead of 0's in all these call
> sites? I just detest seeing mystery functions with lots of 0's and 1's
> as parameters.

I agree that using ARCH_DEFAULT_PKEY is better. I think I am supposed to
send a patch v2 for the update?

By the way, the magic pkey number 0 also appears when bad_area_nosemaphore
calls __bad_area_nosemaphore and bad_area calls __bad_area. Do they need to
be changed to ARCH_DEFAULT_PKEY as well?

Thanks!

Jiashuo Liang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-29 08:33    [W:0.095 / U:0.956 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site