Re: [PATCH 17/20] signal/x86: In emulate_vsyscall force a signal instead of calling do_exit
From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-21 16:36:49
Also in:
lkml
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:44:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Directly calling do_exit with a signal number has the problem that all of the side effects of the signal don't happen, such as killing all of the threads of a process instead of just the calling thread. So replace do_exit(SIGSYS) with force_fatal_sig(SIGSYS) which causes the signal handling to take it's normal path and work as expected. Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <redacted> --- arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c b/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c index 1b40b9297083..0b6b277ee050 100644 --- a/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c +++ b/arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.c@@ -226,7 +226,8 @@ bool emulate_vsyscall(unsigned long error_code, if ((!tmp && regs->orig_ax != syscall_nr) || regs->ip != address) { warn_bad_vsyscall(KERN_DEBUG, regs, "seccomp tried to change syscall nr or ip"); - do_exit(SIGSYS); + force_fatal_sig(SIGSYS); + return true; } regs->orig_ax = -1; if (tmp)
This looks correct to me, but please double-check the x86 selftests if you haven't already. Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <redacted> -- Kees Cook