On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:24 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 1:54 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The SA_IMMUTABLE change was to deal with failures seen in the seccomp
> > test suite after the recent fatal signal refactoring. Mainly that a
> > process that should have effectively performed do_exit() was suddenly
> > visible to the tracer.
>
> I think this basically shows that the conversion from do_exit() to
> fatal_signal() was just wrong. The "do_exit()" wasn't really a signal,
> and can't be treated as such.
>
> That said, instead of reverting, maybe we can just mark the cases
> where it really is about sending a synchronous signal, vs sending an
> explicitly fatal signal.
>
> It's basically the "true" condition to force_sig_info_to_task(), so
> the fix might be just
>
> @@ -1323,7 +1323,8 @@ force_sig_info_to_task(struct kernel_siginfo
> *info, struct task_struct *t, bool
> blocked = sigismember(&t->blocked, sig);
> if (blocked || ignored || sigdfl) {
> action->sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
> - action->sa.sa_flags |= SA_IMMUTABLE;
> + if (sigdfl)
> + action->sa.sa_flags |= SA_IMMUTABLE;
> if (blocked) {
> sigdelset(&t->blocked, sig);
> recalc_sigpending_and_wake(t);
>
> Kyle, does that fix your test-case? And Kees - yours?
This fixes most of the issues with rr, but it still changes the ptrace
behavior for the double-SIGSEGV case (yes, we have a test for that
too). The second SIGSEGV isn't reported to the ptracer and the program
just skips straight to the PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT. This is visible in gdb
as well (only the first SIGSEGV is caught).
- Kyle
