Re: [uml-devel] [Patch] uml: fix a link error

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 09:32:51PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> > > Daolong Wang wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Jeff Dike <jdike@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 02:23:46PM +0800, Daolong Wang wrote:
> > > >>> I can confirm this link error.
> > > >> In what environment?  I see no problems here.
> > > 
> > > I can also confirm this link error.  The problem occurs when compiling
> > > either 2.6.28.1 or 2.6.27.12; I didn't try anything earlier.  The patch
> > > suggested at this beginning of this thread did solve the link problem
> > > and the resulting kernel ran for several hours.  However, I think the
> > > patch is still probably incorrect.
> > > 
> > > I'm going to repost what I said in another message I sent today, this
> > > time with a wider audience:
> > > 
> > > The problem is that the name "sigprocmask" is getting renamed to
> > > "kernel_sigprocmask" by a compiler directive in arch/um/Makefile, then
> > > that name gets mangled into "sys_kernel_sigprocmask" by the
> > > SYSCALL_DEFINE3(sigprocmask, ...) macro in kernel/signal.c.
> > > 
> > > So, instead of the patch suggested earlier, I added the following line
> > > to arch/um/sys-i386/sys_call_table.S:
> > > 
> > > #define sys_sigprocmask sys_kernel_sigprocmask
> > > 
> > > This made it compile and link correctly.  Look at the symbols generated
> > > by the compile of signal.c to see what I mean:
> > > 
> > > # nm kernel/signal.o | grep sigprocmask
> > > 0000008f r __kstrtab_kernel_sigprocmask
> > > 00000040 r __ksymtab_kernel_sigprocmask
> > > 00001ea6 T kernel_sigprocmask
> > > 00002d67 T sys_kernel_sigprocmask
> > > 00001faf T sys_rt_sigprocmask
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, it's a mystery to me that others haven't run into this
> > > before.  My host environment is RHEL 4 inside some kind of chroot.
> > 
> > I've just started seeing this problem with some 2.6.29-rc3 kernel...
> > 
> > Before, I did not have this problem with various 2.6.28-rc8 and 2.6.29-rc1
> > kernels (and several older versions I don't remember).
> > 
> > Given 2.6.29-rc1 works for me and 2.6.28.1 fails for you, I'm inclined to
> > believe 2.6.28 is OK. I'll give it a try...
> > 
> > BTW, I'm using CentOS 5.2.
> 
> Following up from home...
> 
> Indeed, 2.6.28 works, 2.6.28.1 doesn't.
> 
> According to git bisect, it got introduced by the system call security fixes
> (CVE-2009-0029), more specifically by this part:
> 
> | commit fe7c0d987fb2cce464d29eec9dfcca6296b5eed7
> | Author: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> | Date:   Wed Jan 14 14:14:06 2009 +0100
> | 
> |     System call wrappers part 04
> |     
> |     commit b290ebe2c46d01b742b948ce03f09e8a3efb9a92 upstream.
> |     
> |     Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> |     Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>
> | 
> | --- a/kernel/signal.c
> | +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> | @@ -2425,8 +2424,8 @@ sys_sigpending(old_sigset_t __user *set)
> |  /* Some platforms have their own version with special arguments others
> |     support only sys_rt_sigprocmask.  */
> |  
> | -asmlinkage long
> | -sys_sigprocmask(int how, old_sigset_t __user *set, old_sigset_t __user *oset)
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(sigprocmask, int, how, old_sigset_t __user *, set,
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
> | +		old_sigset_t __user *, oset)
> |  {
> |  	int error;
> |  	old_sigset_t old_set, new_set;
> 
> Hence it allows sigprocmask to be redefined to kernel_sigprocmask by the C
> preprocessor...
> 
> This got backported to 2.6.27.12 as well, confusing people who ran post-2.6.27
> development kernels and never noticed the problem (including Jeff and me)...
> 
> It showed up in a "development" kernel in 2.6.29-rc2 only.

Is there a real patch in Linus's tree for this fix that I can add to the
.27 and .28 -stable kernel trees?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/