linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH] fix SEM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:44:12 +0400
From:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] fix SEM_UNDO with namespaces

Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> Manfred Spraul wrote:
>>   
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the attached patch should fix the combination of CLONE_NEWIPC with 
>>> shared sysv undo structures (the common case, just 
>>> sys_unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC)):
>>> lookup_undo() now locates the undo array based on both semid and the 
>>> namespace pointer.
>>>     
>> If you start using any IPC object and then call unshare with CLONE_NEWIPC,
>> then it's your problem, but not the kernel.
>>   
> The result is a kernel memory corruption, and kernel memory corruptions 
> are always the kernel's problem.

Agree. Must be fixed, but I'm not sure we should try handling this
case by trying to de-op semaphores for former task namespace. I think
that destroying this list or returning -EBUSY for this case is OK.

> The code assumed that a semaphore id is globally unique. With 
> namespaces,  this is not true anymore.
> If two semaphore arrays exist with the same id, but different sizes, 
> then semops will cause memory corruptions: The undo structure contains 
> one element for each semaphore, thus the semop will write behind the end 
> of the memory allocation.
> 
>> I agree, that we should probably destroy this one when the task calls 
>> unshare, but trying to keep this list relevant is useless.
>>   
> A very tricky question: Let's assume we have a process with two threads.
> The undo structure is shared, as per opengroup standard.
> Now one thread calls unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC). What should happen? We 
> cannot destroy the undo structure, the other thread might be still 
> interested in it.
> If we allow sys_unshare() for multithreaded processes with CLONE_NEWIPC 
> and without CLONE_SYSVSEM, then we must handle this case.

Hm... I'd simply disable creating any new namespaces for threads.
I think other namespaces developers agree with me. Serge, Suka, Eric
what do you think?

> --
>     Manfred
> 

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