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;
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:31:02 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To:     Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fork: check exit_signal passed in clone3() call
Message-ID: <20190911153101.ecllfqnmqdijad5p@wittgenstein>
References: <20190910175852.GA15572@asgard.redhat.com>
 <20190911064852.9f236d4c201b50e14d717c14@linux-foundation.org>
 <20190911135236.73l6icwxqff7fkw5@wittgenstein>
 <20190911141635.lafrcjwvbhjm3ezy@wittgenstein>
 <20190911143213.GB21600@asgard.redhat.com>
 <20190911145446.vkcqy2shldi5ibb5@wittgenstein>
 <20190911152048.GD21600@asgard.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190911152048.GD21600@asgard.redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 04:20:48PM +0100, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 04:54:47PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:32:13PM +0100, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:52:36PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 06:48:52AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > > What are the user-visible runtime effects of this bug?
> > > 
> > > The userspace can set -1 as an exit_signal, and that will break process
> > > signalling and reaping.
> > > 
> > > > > > Relatedly, should this fix be backported into -stable kernels?  If so, why?
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, as I said in my other mail clone3() is not in any released kernel
> > > > > yet. clone3() is going to be released in v5.3.
> > > > 
> > > > Sigh, I spoke to soon... Hm, this is placed in _do_fork(). There's a
> > > > chance that this might be visible in legacy clone if anyone passes in an
> > > > invalid signal greater than NSIG right now somehow, they'd now get
> > > > EINVAL if I'm seeing this right.
> > > > 
> > > > So an alternative might be to only fix this in clone3() only right now
> > > > and get this patch into 5.3 to not release clone3() with this bug from
> > > > legacy clone duplicated.
> > > > And we defer the actual legacy clone fix until after next merge window
> > > > having it stew in linux-next for a couple of rcs. Distros often pull in
> > > > rcs so if anyone notices a regression for legacy clone we'll know about
> > > > it... valid_signal() checks at process exit time when the parent is
> > > > supposed to be notifed will catch faulty signals anyway so it's not that
> > > > big of a deal.
> > > 
> > > As the patch is written, only copy_clone_args_from_user is touched (which
> > > is used only by clone3 and not legacy clone), and the check added
> > 
> > Great!
> > 
> > > replicates legacy clone behaviour: userspace can set 0..CSIGNAL
> > > as an exit_signal.   Having ability to set exit_signal in NSIG..CSIGNAL
> > 
> > Hm. The way I see it for clone3() it would make sense to only have <
> > NSIG right away. valid_signal() won't let through anything else
> > anyway... Since clone3() isn't out yet it doesn't make sense to
> > replicate the (buggy) behavior of legacy clone, right?
> 
> I was thinking about that and in the end decided to go with CSIGNAL;
> the only issue I see here is that it prevents for libc to easily
> switch clone() library call implementation to clone3(), in case there
> are some applications that rely on this kind of behaviour; if there's
> no such userspace users, then switch to valid_signal() check for both
> legacy and clone3 should be fine (along with possible switching to u64
> for kernel_clone_args's exit_signal, so the check can done in one place),
> but I'm agree with your hesitance to do it right now.

We already have other explicit differences between clone() and clone3().
And these differences are intentional. Two examples are that CSIGNAL is
not a valid flag anymore (due to .exit-signal) and CLONE_DETACHED will
not be simply ignored anymore but will get you EINVAL. So that shouldn't
be a concern.

I think we really want the minimal thing and only for clone3 right now:
verify whether any high-bits are set and whether it's a valid signal.
clone3() needs to have correct semantics when released!

Legacy clone on the other hand already has this buggy behavior for
n-years. It can have it for a little while longer so we can see whether
userspace relies on it.

Christian