linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] introduce get_task_pid() to fix unsafe get

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]

Message-ID: <m1venvawbi.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:58:25 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce get_task_pid() to fix unsafe get_pid()

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> writes:

> (COMPILE TESTED, needs an ack from Eric)
>
> proc_pid_make_inode:
>
> 	ei->pid = get_pid(task_pid(task));
>
> I think this is not safe. get_pid() can be preempted after checking
> "pid != NULL". Then the task exits, does detach_pid(), and RCU frees
> the pid.

Ugh.  I had forgotten that the pid of a task gets freed even if you
hold a reference to the task struct.  So the preemption case looks possible.

Your technique to handle this problem looks fine.

As for the functions can we build them in all 4 varieties.
struct pid *get_task_pid(struct task *);
struct pid *get_task_tgid(struct task *);
struct pid *get_task_pgrp(struct task *);
struct pid *get_task_session(struct task *);

Functions without a flag are less error prone to use, and clearer to read.

Either that or we can just drop in some rcu_read_lock() rcu_read_unlock()
into the call sites.

Eric
-
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/