Received: by 2002:a25:86ce:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y14csp968531ybm; Wed, 22 May 2019 14:54:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzEF3b9E34CT+jrPbvnzQZs5b2znVQwYqdKQBe0LkE50NAMacjWCvaoAjYtdbxX3CAd9xOq X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:5a4f:: with SMTP id f15mr59116376plm.1.1558562053883; Wed, 22 May 2019 14:54:13 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1558562053; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=oaIicjpS1drmAyKccAidjHrBnIpto2BPzs83cmG4uVCBc08FhK6iOxR0AF6ClW6dtw Ko/5RQBeB/2pFiSqOvrZsg4RDJZWPYn+XuIk811q75QKMo1pEyaCRphCMsXTVCtpWjE9 9zSHixRlXAfitrBfoRryb7oV47yNCM6LoK7ZrhK6Q4DSdpvDH61Ve7G2w1miqVmnk0D1 szkEZ0A9BkcgVOaql9Sjb29506o/81FPnEUlUKsLtTOwH776bNr7Uu07SNpsvlQ1Jh90 0Pxxw0hPSFIKX+lrw1PAFW0A00qR+BLNpmPAYZlXDyoOJkPU3YkVwFiIc4Vwf5UptLhv RQig== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:subject:mime-version:user-agent :message-id:in-reply-to:date:references:cc:to:from; bh=ONCKhfvOok3QM0ICi8UZKQhTJvNHeGzEkXe2OMIsUH8=; b=Pg68JjZuCQT0M2bnEipSD4CKl69PpDPbETfX51kcYV1ATTBRX+z+oKxMd1gB40F92r dWlzAwzL0sq6saixYeS75DgVAQCrLcNPPQjfkuhErO8ZBFxw6oQxWt6hVoHUmY3ZSUZn W7bYHsS8ugXxHHVJuRgL/3vcYU5XZ/qhDTAHBQbCcRNSSdInmYNViFBRUUAIJRvaSERX mCaMK6ukaAJgty1POx1p+C/PV1E2Q/hakRtpsLySzqsJmNGqF923qD1f8TesTxHWzrRo UK5vaeqP/O/9WYAz4R1z/uXdM2wOwD5ek5xQ6VZLoxmYmtnQbbo5jnHs2nHxSrojZOIf uhiA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=xmission.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f34si1423999ple.322.2019.05.22.14.53.58; Wed, 22 May 2019 14:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=xmission.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730429AbfEVVud (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 22 May 2019 17:50:33 -0400 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:44733 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728615AbfEVVuc (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 17:50:32 -0400 Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out03.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1hTZ82-0006en-KY; Wed, 22 May 2019 15:50:30 -0600 Received: from ip72-206-97-68.om.om.cox.net ([72.206.97.68] helo=x220.xmission.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1hTZ7s-0002cm-1j; Wed, 22 May 2019 15:50:30 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Alan Stern Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Oliver Neukum , References: Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 16:50:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Alan Stern's message of "Wed, 22 May 2019 15:02:29 -0400 (EDT)") Message-ID: <87o93ujh0s.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1hTZ7s-0002cm-1j;;;mid=<87o93ujh0s.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=72.206.97.68;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1/KkZFIzOai1UbCldXVDvTfkpuB43MLQLU= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 72.206.97.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa03.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.0 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,T_TooManySym_01, T_XMDrugObfuBody_12,XMGappySubj_01,XMGappySubj_02,XMSubLong autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4905] * 1.0 XMGappySubj_02 Gappier still * 0.5 XMGappySubj_01 Very gappy subject * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject * 1.0 T_XMDrugObfuBody_12 obfuscated drug references X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ***;Alan Stern X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 10180 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.03 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 2.2 (0.0%), b_tie_ro: 1.64 (0.0%), parse: 0.68 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 10 (0.1%), get_uri_detail_list: 2.3 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 3.2 (0.0%), tests_pri_-950: 1.10 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 0.85 (0.0%), tests_pri_-90: 23 (0.2%), check_bayes: 22 (0.2%), b_tokenize: 8 (0.1%), b_tok_get_all: 8 (0.1%), b_comp_prob: 2.1 (0.0%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.8 (0.0%), b_finish: 0.51 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 3457 (34.0%), check_dkim_signature: 0.40 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 3073 (30.2%), poll_dns_idle: 9735 (95.6%), tests_pri_10: 2.7 (0.0%), tests_pri_500: 6677 (65.6%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal/usb: Replace kill_pid_info_as_cred with kill_pid_usb_asyncio X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Stern writes: > On Tue, 21 May 2019, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> The usb support for asyncio encoded one of it's values in the wrong >> field. It should have used si_value but instead used si_addr which is >> not present in the _rt union member of struct siginfo. >> >> The practical result of this is that on a 64bit big endian kernel >> when delivering a signal to a 32bit process the si_addr field >> is set to NULL, instead of the expected pointer value. >> >> This issue can not be fixed in copy_siginfo_to_user32 as the usb >> usage of the the _sigfault (aka si_addr) member of the siginfo >> union when SI_ASYNCIO is set is incompatible with the POSIX and >> glibc usage of the _rt member of the siginfo union. >> >> Therefore replace kill_pid_info_as_cred with kill_pid_usb_asyncio a >> dedicated function for this one specific case. There are no other >> users of kill_pid_info_as_cred so this specialization should have no >> impact on the amount of code in the kernel. Have kill_pid_usb_asyncio >> take instead of a siginfo_t which is difficult and error prone, 3 >> arguments, a signal number, an errno value, and an address enconded as >> a sigval_t. The encoding of the address as a sigval_t allows the >> code that reads the userspace request for a signal to handle this >> compat issue along with all of the other compat issues. >> >> Add BUILD_BUG_ONs in kernel/signal.c to ensure that we can now place >> the pointer value at the in si_pid (instead of si_addr). That is the >> code now verifies that si_pid and si_addr always occur at the same >> location. Further the code veries that for native structures a value >> placed in si_pid and spilling into si_uid will appear in userspace in >> si_addr (on a byte by byte copy of siginfo or a field by field copy of >> siginfo). The code also verifies that for a 64bit kernel and a 32bit >> userspace the 32bit pointer will fit in si_pid. > > Okay, I have gone through this. Although I still don't really > understand the detailed issues concerning the layout of the data fields > (probably hopeless without seeing a diagram), the USB portions of the > patch look good and do what the patch description says. > > Acked-by: Alan Stern > > Alan Stern Thanks. Perhaps this will work as a diagram. I don't know if there is a better way to say it in my patch description. In struct siginfo there are 3 fields in fixed positions: int si_signo; int si_errno; int si_code; After that there is a union. The si_signo and si_code fields are examined to see which union member is valid (see siginfo_layout). In every other case a si_code of SI_ASYNCIO corresponds to the the _rt union member which has the fields: int si_pid; int si_uid; sigval_t si_sigval; However when usb started using SI_ASYNCIO the _sigfault union member that (except for special exceptions) only has the field: void __user *si_addr; Or in short the relevant piece of the union looks like: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | si_pid | si_uid | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | si_addr | (64bit) +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | si_addr | (32bit) +---+---+---+---+ Which means if siginfo is copied field by field on 32bit everything works because si_pid and si_addr are in the same location. Similarly if siginfo is copied field by field on 64bit everything works because there is no padding between si_pid and si_uid. So copying both of those fields results in the entire si_addr being copied. It is the compat case that gets tricky. Half of the bits are zero. If those zero bits show up in bytes 4-7 and the data shows up in bytes 0-3 (aka little endian) everything works. If those zero bits show in in bytes 0-3 (aka big endian) userspace sees a NULL pointer instead of the value it passed. Fixing this while maintaining some modicum of sanity is the tricky bit. The interface is made to kill_pid_usb_asyncio is made a sigval_t so the standard signal compat tricks can be used. sigval_t is a union of: int sival_int; void __user *sival_ptr; 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | sival_ptr | (64bit) +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | sival_ptr | (32bit) +---+---+---+---+ | sival_int | +---+---+---+---+ The signal code solves the compat issues for sigval_t by storing the 32bit pointers in sival_int. So they meaningful bits are guaranteed to be in the low 32bits, just like the 32bit sival_ptr. After a bunch of build BUG_ONs to verify my reasonable assumptions of but the siginfo layout are actually true, the code that generates the siginfo just copies a sigval_t to si_pid. And assumes the code in the usb stack placed the pointer in the proper part of the sigval_t when it read the information from userspace. I don't know if that helps make it easy to understand but I figured I would give it a shot. Eric