| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:53:54 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Yama: remove locking from delete path
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Serge Hallyn
> <serge.hallyn@...onical.com> wrote:
>> Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@...omium.org):
>>> Instead of locking the list during a delete, mark entries as invalid
>>> and trigger a workqueue to clean them up. This lets us easily handle
>>> task_free from interrupt context.
>>>
>>> Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>> ---
>>> security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
>>> index 17da6ca..1cba901 100644
>>> --- a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
>>> +++ b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
>>> #include <linux/prctl.h>
>>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>>> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
>>>
>>> #define YAMA_SCOPE_DISABLED 0
>>> #define YAMA_SCOPE_RELATIONAL 1
>>> @@ -29,6 +30,7 @@ static int ptrace_scope = YAMA_SCOPE_RELATIONAL;
>>> struct ptrace_relation {
>>> struct task_struct *tracer;
>>> struct task_struct *tracee;
>>> + bool invalid;
>>> struct list_head node;
>>> struct rcu_head rcu;
>>> };
>>> @@ -36,6 +38,27 @@ struct ptrace_relation {
>>> static LIST_HEAD(ptracer_relations);
>>> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ptracer_relations_lock);
>>>
>>> +static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work);
>>> +static DECLARE_WORK(yama_relation_work, yama_relation_cleanup);
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * yama_relation_cleanup - remove invalid entries from the relation list
>>> + *
>>> + */
>>> +static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work)
>>> +{
>>> + struct ptrace_relation *relation;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>>> + if (relation->invalid) {
>>> + list_del_rcu(&relation->node);
>>> + kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + spin_unlock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> * yama_ptracer_add - add/replace an exception for this tracer/tracee pair
>>> * @tracer: the task_struct of the process doing the ptrace
>>> @@ -57,9 +80,12 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
>>>
>>> added->tracee = tracee;
>>> added->tracer = tracer;
>>> + added->invalid = false;
>>>
>>> - spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> + spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>>> + if (relation->invalid)
>>> + continue;
>>> if (relation->tracee == tracee) {
>>> list_replace_rcu(&relation->node, &added->node);
>>> kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
>>> @@ -70,7 +96,7 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
>>> list_add_rcu(&added->node, &ptracer_relations);
>>>
>>> out:
>>> - spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> + spin_unlock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -84,15 +110,15 @@ static void yama_ptracer_del(struct task_struct *tracer,
>>> {
>>> struct ptrace_relation *relation;
>>>
>>> - spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>
>> I don't understand - is there a patch I don't have sitting around
>> which puts the calls to yama_ptracer_del() under rcu_read_lock()?
>> If not, I don't see how it's safe to walk the list here and risk
>> racing against another yama_relation_cleanup() run.
>>
>> I'm probably missing something really cool about the locking,
>> but it doesn't look right to me. I would think you'd want to
>> do the loop under rcu_read_lock(), set a boolean if one is
>> changed, and call schedule_work() once at the end if the boolean
>> is set.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken and my lockdep tests are wrong,
> list_for_each_entry_rcu runs under rcu_read_lock().
Ew, yeah, no, the examples I was looking at are missing
rcu_read_lock(). That's sad. Anyway, I'll fix this up here and in the
other patch.
> I could optimize it to only run schedule_work() once all the marking
> is done at the end of the loop.
And I'll do this.
-Kees
>
> -Kees
>
>>
>>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>>> + if (relation->invalid)
>>> + continue;
>>> if (relation->tracee == tracee ||
>>> (tracer && relation->tracer == tracer)) {
>>> - list_del_rcu(&relation->node);
>>> - kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
>>> + relation->invalid = true;
>>> + schedule_work(&yama_relation_work);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> - spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> }
>>>
>>> /**
>>> @@ -219,12 +245,15 @@ static int ptracer_exception_found(struct task_struct *tracer,
>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>> if (!thread_group_leader(tracee))
>>> tracee = rcu_dereference(tracee->group_leader);
>>> - list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node)
>>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>>> + if (relation->invalid)
>>> + continue;
>>> if (relation->tracee == tracee) {
>>> parent = relation->tracer;
>>> found = true;
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> + }
>>>
>>> if (found && (parent == NULL || task_is_descendant(parent, tracer)))
>>> rc = 1;
>>> --
>>> 1.7.9.5
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kees Cook
>>> Chrome OS Security
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS Security
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists