linux-kernel - Re: [ 020/184] ptrace: ensure arch_ptrace/ptrace

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:	Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:40:52 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [ 020/184] ptrace: ensure arch_ptrace/ptrace_request can never

On 06/05, Luis Henriques wrote:
>
> Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> writes:
>
> > 2.6.32-longterm review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >  race with SIGKILL
> >
> > From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> >
> > ptrace: ensure arch_ptrace/ptrace_request can never race with SIGKILL
> >
>
> This patch actually introduce a regression in the Ubuntu kernel.  You
> may want to include the fix below.

Yes, 2.6.32 should also take care of TASK_STOPPED.

> --- a/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -81,14 +81,18 @@ void __ptrace_unlink(struct task_struct *child)
>  }
>  
>  /* Ensure that nothing can wake it up, even SIGKILL */
> -static bool ptrace_freeze_traced(struct task_struct *task)
> +static bool ptrace_freeze_traced(struct task_struct *task, int kill)
>  {
> -	bool ret = false;
> +	bool ret = true;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
> -	if (task_is_traced(task) && !__fatal_signal_pending(task)) {
> +	if (task_is_stopped(task) && !__fatal_signal_pending(task))
>  		task->state = __TASK_TRACED;
> -		ret = true;
> +	else if (!kill) {
> +		if (task_is_traced(task) && !__fatal_signal_pending(task))
> +			task->state = __TASK_TRACED;
> +		else
> +			ret = false;
>  	}
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
>  
> @@ -131,7 +135,7 @@ int ptrace_check_attach(struct task_struct *child, int kill)
>  		 * child->sighand can't be NULL, release_task()
>  		 * does ptrace_unlink() before __exit_signal().
>  		 */
> -		if (kill || ptrace_freeze_traced(child))
> +		if (ptrace_freeze_traced(child, kill))
>  			ret = 0;

I can't apply this patch, probably I misread it...

But it looks very wrong. It seems that ptrace_freeze_traced(kill => true)
always succeeds? Even if task is TASK_RUNNING/UNINTERRUPTIBLE/etc ?

Note: I can make a _much_ simpler patch for 2.6.32, please let me know
if you need it.

We can rely on sys_ptrace()->lock_kernel() and simply do lock/unlock
if fatal_signal_pending() in ptrace_stop/do_signal_stop. This is not
the same, this doesn't prevent wakeup(), but this should be enough.

Oleg.

--
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/