Date:   Thu, 6 Oct 2022 13:20:35 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jorge Merlino <jorge.merlino@...onical.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        Richard Haines <richard_c_haines@...nternet.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
        Prashanth Prahlad <pprahlad@...hat.com>,
        Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        apparmor@...ts.ubuntu.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix race condition when exec'ing setuid files

On Thu, Sep 13, 2022 at 15:03:38 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> It seems quite unusual to have a high-load heavily threaded
> process decide to exec.

In looking at this a bunch more, I actually think everything is working
as intended. If a process is actively launching threads while also trying
to exec, they're going to create races for themselves.

So the question, then, is "why are they trying to exec while actively
spawning new threads?" That appears to be the core problem here, and as
far as I can tell, the kernel has behaved this way for a very long time.
I don't think the kernel should fix this, either, because it leads to a
very weird state for userspace, where the thread spawner may suddenly
die due to the exec happening in another thread. This really looks like
something userspace needs to handle correctly (i.e. don't try to exec
while actively spawning threads).

For example, here's a fix to the original PoC:

--- a.c.original        2022-10-06 13:07:13.279845619 -0700
+++ a.c 2022-10-06 13:10:27.702941645 -0700
@@ -8,8 +8,10 @@
        return NULL;
 }
 
+int stop_spawning;
+
 void *target(void *p) {
-       for (;;) {
+       while (!stop_spawning) {
                pthread_t t;
                if (pthread_create(&t, NULL, nothing, NULL) == 0)
                        pthread_join(t, NULL);
@@ -17,18 +19,26 @@
        return NULL;
 }
 
+#define MAX_THREADS    10
+
 int main(void)
 {
+       pthread_t threads[MAX_THREADS];
        struct timespec tv;
        int i;
 
-       for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
-               pthread_t t;
-               pthread_create(&t, NULL, target, NULL);
+       for (i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS; i++) {
+               pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, target, NULL);
        }
        tv.tv_sec = 0;
        tv.tv_nsec = 100000;
        nanosleep(&tv, NULL);
+
+       /* Signal shut down, and collect spawners. */
+       stop_spawning = 1;
+       for (i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS; i++)
+               pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
+
        if (execl("./b", "./b", NULL) < 0)
                perror("execl");
        return 0;


-- 
Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists