Re: [PATCH] alpha: fix crash if pthread_create races with signal delivery

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Michael Cree wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 02:01:34PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > On alpha, a process will crash if it attempts to start a thread and a
> > signal is delivered at the same time. The crash can be reproduced with
> > this program: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2014-11/msg00473.html
> > 
> > The reason for the crash is this:
> > * we call the clone syscall
> > * we go to the function copy_process
> > * copy process calls copy_thread_tls, it is a wrapper around copy_thread
> > * copy_thread sets the tls pointer: childti->pcb.unique = regs->r20
> > * copy_thread sets regs->r20 to zero
> > * we go back to copy_process
> > * copy process checks "if (signal_pending(current))" and returns
> >   -ERESTARTNOINTR
> > * the clone syscall is restarted, but this time, regs->r20 is zero, so
> >   the new thread is created with zero tls pointer
> > * the new thread crashes in start_thread when attempting to access tls
> > 
> > The comment in the code says that setting the register r20 is some
> > compatibility with OSF/1. But OSF/1 doesn't use the CLONE_SETTLS flag, so
> > we don't have to zero r20 if CLONE_SETTLS is set. This patch fixes the bug
> > by zeroing regs->r20 only if CLONE_SETTLS is not set.
> 
> This bug was identified some three years ago; it triggers a failure
> in the glibc nptl/tst-eintr3 test.  See:
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-alpha&m=140610647213217&w=2
> 
> and a fix was proposed by RTH, namely:
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-alpha&m=140675667715872&w=2
> 
> but was never included in the kernel because someone objected to
> breaking the ability to run OSF/1 executables.  That patch also
> deleted the line to set childregs->r20 to 1 which I mark below.
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > ---
> >  arch/alpha/kernel/process.c |    3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux-stable/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-stable.orig/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c	2017-12-31 17:42:12.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-stable/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c	2018-01-02 18:06:24.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -265,12 +265,13 @@ copy_thread(unsigned long clone_flags, u
> >  	   application calling fork.  */
> >  	if (clone_flags & CLONE_SETTLS)
> >  		childti->pcb.unique = regs->r20;
> > +	else
> > +		regs->r20 = 0;	/* OSF/1 has some strange fork() semantics.  */
> >  	childti->pcb.usp = usp ?: rdusp();
> >  	*childregs = *regs;
> >  	childregs->r0 = 0;
> >  	childregs->r19 = 0;
> >  	childregs->r20 = 1;	/* OSF/1 has some strange fork() semantics.  */
> 
> This line.  Is it not also problematic?

If a signal is delivered to the parent process, the incomplete child 
process is deleted and it is recreated when the syscall is restarted.

So, setting "childregs->r20 = 1" shouldn't cause any problems.

Mikulas

> Cheers
> Michael.
> 
> > -	regs->r20 = 0;
> >  	stack = ((struct switch_stack *) regs) - 1;
> >  	*childstack = *stack;
> >  	childstack->r26 = (unsigned long) ret_from_fork;
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-alpha" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-alpha" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html