Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=wgsnMTr0V-0F4FOk30Q1h7CeT8wLvR1MSnjack7EpyWtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6e47eff8-d0a4-8390-1222-e975bfbf3a65@gmail.com> <924ec53c-2fd9-2e1c-bbb1-3fda49809be4@gmail.com>
 <87eed4v2dc.fsf@disp2133> <5929e116-fa61-b211-342a-c706dcb834ca@gmail.com>
 <87fsxjorgs.fsf@disp2133> <CAHk-=wj5cJjpjAmDptmP9u4__6p3Y93SCQHG8Ef4+h=cnLiCsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YNCaMDQVYB04bk3j@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> <YNDhdb7XNQE6zQzL@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=whAsWXcJkpMM8ji77DkYkeJAT4Cj98WBX-S6=GnMQwhzg@mail.gmail.com> <YNDsYk6kbisbNy3I@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <YNDsYk6kbisbNy3I@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:14:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh82uJ5Poqby3brn-D7xWbCMnGv-JnwfO0tuRfCvsVgXA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel stack read with PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT and io_uring threads
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
        alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>,
        Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon.tan@intel.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 12:45 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Looks like sys_exit() and do_group_exit() would be the two places to
> > do it (do_group_exit() would handle the signal case and
> > sys_group_exit()).
>
> Maybe...  I'm digging through that pile right now, will follow up when
> I get a reasonably complete picture

We might have another possible way to solve this:

 (a) make it the rule that everybody always saves the full (integer)
register set in pt_regs

 (b) make m68k just always create that switch-stack for all system
calls (it's really not that big, I think it's like six words or
something)

 (c) admit that alpha is broken, but nobody really cares

> In the meanwhile, do kernel/kthread.c uses look even remotely sane?
> Intentional - sure, but it really looks wrong to use thread exit code
> as communication channel there...

I really doubt that it is even "intentional".

I think it's "use some errno as a random exit code" and nobody ever
really thought about it, or thought about how that doesn't really
work. People are used to the error numbers, not thinking about how
do_exit() doesn't take an error number, but a signal number (and an
8-bit positive error code in bits 8-15).

Because no, it's not even remotely sane.

I think the do_exit(-EINTR) could be do_exit(SIGINT) and it would make
more sense. And the -ENOMEM might be SIGBUS, perhaps.

It does look like the usermode-helper code does save the exit code
with things like

                kernel_wait(pid, &sub_info->retval);

and I see call_usermodehelper_exec() doing

        retval = sub_info->retval;

and treating it as an error code. But I think those have never been
tested with that (bogus) exit code thing from kernel_wait(), because
it wouldn't have worked.  It has only ever been tested with the (real)
exit code things like

                if (pid < 0) {
                        sub_info->retval = pid;

which does actually assign a negative error code to it.

So I think that

                kernel_wait(pid, &sub_info->retval);

line is buggy, and should be something like

                int wstatus;
                kernel_wait(pid, &wstatus);
                sub_info->retval = WEXITSTATUS(wstatus) ? -EINVAL : 0;

or something.

            Linus