2.6.29-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. ------------------ From: Oleg Nesterov commit 8c652f96d3852b97a49c331cd0bb02d22f3cb31b upstream. If do_execve() fails after check_unsafe_exec(), it clears fs->in_exec unconditionally. This is wrong if we race with our sub-thread which also does do_execve: Two threads T1 and T2 and another process P, all share the same ->fs. T1 starts do_execve(BAD_FILE). It calls check_unsafe_exec(), since ->fs is shared, we set LSM_UNSAFE but not ->in_exec. P exits and decrements fs->users. T2 starts do_execve(), calls check_unsafe_exec(), now ->fs is not shared, we set fs->in_exec. T1 continues, open_exec(BAD_FILE) fails, we clear ->in_exec and return to the user-space. T1 does clone(CLONE_FS /* without CLONE_THREAD */). T2 continues without LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE while ->fs is shared with another process. Change check_unsafe_exec() to return res = 1 if we set ->in_exec, and change do_execve() to clear ->in_exec depending on res. When do_execve() suceeds, it is safe to clear ->in_exec unconditionally. It can be set only if we don't share ->fs with another process, and since we already killed all sub-threads either ->in_exec == 0 or we are the only user of this ->fs. Also, we do not need fs->lock to clear fs->in_exec. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Acked-by: Roland McGrath Acked-by: Hugh Dickins Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/compat.c | 11 +++++------ fs/exec.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) --- a/fs/compat.c +++ b/fs/compat.c @@ -1394,6 +1394,7 @@ int compat_do_execve(char * filename, struct linux_binprm *bprm; struct file *file; struct files_struct *displaced; + bool clear_in_exec; int retval; retval = unshare_files(&displaced); @@ -1415,8 +1416,9 @@ int compat_do_execve(char * filename, goto out_unlock; retval = check_unsafe_exec(bprm); - if (retval) + if (retval < 0) goto out_unlock; + clear_in_exec = retval; file = open_exec(filename); retval = PTR_ERR(file); @@ -1463,9 +1465,7 @@ int compat_do_execve(char * filename, goto out; /* execve succeeded */ - write_lock(¤t->fs->lock); current->fs->in_exec = 0; - write_unlock(¤t->fs->lock); mutex_unlock(¤t->cred_exec_mutex); acct_update_integrals(current); free_bprm(bprm); @@ -1484,9 +1484,8 @@ out_file: } out_unmark: - write_lock(¤t->fs->lock); - current->fs->in_exec = 0; - write_unlock(¤t->fs->lock); + if (clear_in_exec) + current->fs->in_exec = 0; out_unlock: mutex_unlock(¤t->cred_exec_mutex); --- a/fs/exec.c +++ b/fs/exec.c @@ -1069,9 +1069,11 @@ int check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binpr if (p->fs->users > n_fs) { bprm->unsafe |= LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE; } else { - if (p->fs->in_exec) - res = -EAGAIN; - p->fs->in_exec = 1; + res = -EAGAIN; + if (!p->fs->in_exec) { + p->fs->in_exec = 1; + res = 1; + } } unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags); @@ -1273,6 +1275,7 @@ int do_execve(char * filename, struct linux_binprm *bprm; struct file *file; struct files_struct *displaced; + bool clear_in_exec; int retval; retval = unshare_files(&displaced); @@ -1294,8 +1297,9 @@ int do_execve(char * filename, goto out_unlock; retval = check_unsafe_exec(bprm); - if (retval) + if (retval < 0) goto out_unlock; + clear_in_exec = retval; file = open_exec(filename); retval = PTR_ERR(file); @@ -1343,9 +1347,7 @@ int do_execve(char * filename, goto out; /* execve succeeded */ - write_lock(¤t->fs->lock); current->fs->in_exec = 0; - write_unlock(¤t->fs->lock); mutex_unlock(¤t->cred_exec_mutex); acct_update_integrals(current); free_bprm(bprm); @@ -1364,9 +1366,8 @@ out_file: } out_unmark: - write_lock(¤t->fs->lock); - current->fs->in_exec = 0; - write_unlock(¤t->fs->lock); + if (clear_in_exec) + current->fs->in_exec = 0; out_unlock: mutex_unlock(¤t->cred_exec_mutex); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/