linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] c/r: prctl: Add ability to set new mm_struct::exe

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:	Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:59:01 -0800
From:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] c/r: prctl: Add ability to set new mm_struct::exe_file v3

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:39:32AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:02:44PM -0800, Matt Helsley wrote:
> ...
> > 
> > Sorry about the other email -- hadn't full caught up on this thread.
> 
> No problem.
> 
> > This is even better, yes.
> >
> 
> Well, in final version I switched back to
> 
> +	if (mm->num_exe_file_vmas)
> +		return -EBUSY;
> 
> simply because it's more flexible than mm->exe_file.
> 
> With mm->exe_file this prctl option become a one-shot
> only, and while at moment our user-space tool can perfectly
> live with that I thought that there is no strict need to
> limit the option this way from the very beginning.

As far as backward compatibility, isn't it better to lift that restriction
later rather than add it? I think the latter would very likely "break"
things whereas the former would not.

I also prefer that restriction because it establishes a bound on how
frequently the symlink can change. Keeping it a one-shot deal makes the
values that show up in tools like top more reliable for admins.

> 
> > Of course I'd prefer it if there was a way to keep num_exe_file_vmas
> > correct and not special-case c/r. The first approximation of a solution
> 
> It remains correct actually. There is no way to map new VM_EXECUTABLE
> from user-space after we've unmapped previous ones, so num_exe_file_vmas
> will remain 0.
> 
> > might be to increment the count whenever a new mmap filp == mm->exe_file
> > and decrement on unmap. I think there are a bunch of details needed to
> > make that work but my feeling is it's do-able. Have you investigated this
> > already and rejected it for some reason (did I miss that discussion
> > somehow?)?
> 
> As far as I understand overall num_exe_file_vmas concept -- we track
> a number of VM_EXECUTABLE with it, so setting new exe_file should not
> change num_exe_file_vmas I think.

True, it's literally correct. However the whole reason for having it
is to turn the mm->exe_file reference into a sort of weak reference
which happens to coincide with counting the number of VM_EXECUTABLE vmas
until you do c/r (really just the restart side of c/r).

Cheers,
	-Matt

--
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/