[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202409281449.B228D0C1E7@keescook>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 14:51:06 -0700
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Allen Pais <apais@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>,
Vijay Nag <nagvijay@...rosoft.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: Do not lock during 'comm' reporting
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 02:46:36PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 14:39:45 -0700 Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 02:35:32PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 14:08:31 -0700 Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The 'comm' member will always be NUL terminated,
> > >
> > > Why is this? I thought this is only true if the caller holds task_lock()?
> >
> > Because it's always written with strscpy_pad(). The final byte will
> > always be NUL. (And this has been true for a very long time.)
>
> So why does __get_task_comm() need to take task_lock()?
That was to make sure we didn't end up with garbled results, but
discussions have determined that we don't care:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240828030321.20688-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com/
But just for safety's sake, I'll change this memcpy to:
memcpy_and_pad(comm, sizeof(comm), current->comm, sizeof(comm) - 1, 0);
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists