On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:05:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 05:42:00PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 05:01:13PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:44:45PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:40:43PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:32:26PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: [...] > > > > > > Either way, I feel we should do this: any function in a PROT_BTI page > > > > > > should have a suitable landing pad. There's no reason I can see why > > > > > > a protection given to any other callback function should be omitted > > > > > > for a signal handler. > > > > > > > > > > > > Note, if the signal handler isn't in a PROT_BTI page then overriding > > > > > > BTYPE here will not trigger a Branch Target exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm happy to drop a brief comment into the code also, once we're > > > > > > agreed on what the code should be doing. > > > > > > > > > > So long as there's a comment as to why, I have no strong feelings here. > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > OK, I think it's worth a brief comment in the code either way, so I'll > > > > add something. > > > > > > Hmm, come to think of it we do need special logic for a particular case > > > here: > > > > > > If we are delivering a SIGILL here and the SIGILL handler was registered > > > with SA_NODEFER then we will get into a spin, repeatedly delivering > > > the BTI-triggered SIGILL to the same (bad) entry point. > > > > > > Without SA_NODEFER, the SIGILL becomes fatal, which is the desired > > > behaviour, but we'll need to catch this recursion explicitly. > > > > > > > > > It's similar to the special force_sigsegv() case in > > > linux/kernel/signal.c... > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > On second thought, maybe we don't need to do anything special. > > > > A SIGSEGV handler registered with (SA_NODEFER & ~SA_RESETHAND) and that > > dereferences a duff address would spin similarly. > > > > This SIGILL case doesn't really seem different. Either way it's a > > livelock of the user task that doesn't compromise the kernel. There > > are plenty of ways for such a livelock to happen. > > That sounds reasonable to me. OK, I guess we can park this discussion for now. Cheers ---Dave
