linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] exec_path 1/9: introduce ->exec

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:10:46 -0700
From:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, xemul@...allels.com,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] exec_path 1/9: introduce ->exec_path and switch
	/proc/*/exe

On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 12:55:32AM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 03:04:22AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:19:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 01:54:27 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > And BTW, there is something unnatural when executable path is attached
> > > > to mm_struct(!) not task_struct,
> > > 
> > > mm_struct is the central object for a heavyweight process.  All threads
> > > within that process share the same executable path (don't they?) so
> > > attaching the executable path to the mm seems OK to me.
> > 
> > OK, let's try this:
> > 
> > 
> > [PATCH 1/9] exec_path 1/9: introduce ->exec_path and switch /proc/*/exe
> > 
> > ->exec_path marks executable which is associated with running task.
> > Binfmt loader decides which executable is such and can, in theory,
> > assign anything. Unlike current status quo when first VM_EXECUTABLE mapping is
> > sort of marks running executable.
> > 
> > If executable unmaps its all VM_EXECUTABLE mappings, /proc/*/exe ceases
> > to exists, ick! And userpsace can't even use MAP_EXECUTABLE.
> 
> Suprising but intentional and unavoidable. More below..
> 
> > 
> > Tasks which aren't created by running clone(2) and execve(2)
> > (read: kernel threads) get empty ->exec_path and
> > 
> > ->exec_path is copied on clone(2) and put at do_exit() time.
> 
> Doesn't this pin the vfs mount of the executable for the lifetime of
> the task?
> 
> That was one of Al Viro's objections to early revisions of the exe_file
> patches. It's the reason the exe_file patches kept track of the number of
> VM_EXECUTABLE mappings with num_exe_file_vmas.
> 
> I've cc'd Al so he can confirm/deny my recollection of this. Basically
> some programs need to be able to umount the filesystem that back their
> executables. Being able to unmap these regions was effectively a
> userspace API for unpinning these mounts. I needed to preserve that API,
> hence the VMA ugliness of exe_file that you object to with the exe_file
> patches.
> 
> I think patches 2-7 look great and could be adapted to use exe_file instead
> of ->exec_path.

Well, except 5 and 6.

Alternately, I think you could use the same VMA code with ->exec_path to avoid
pinning the vfs mount. However, then it would probably be best to move
it into the mm just like exe_file...

> 
> Cheers,
> 	-Matt Helsley
--
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/