linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] binfmt_elf: core dump masking support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:17:35 +0900
From:	"Kawai, Hidehiro" <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...e.de, james.bottomley@...eleye.com,
	Satoshi OSHIMA <soshima@...hat.com>,
	"Hideo AOKI@...hat" <haoki@...hat.com>,
	sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binfmt_elf: core dump masking support

Hi,

>>>>>(run echo 1 > coremask, echo 0 > coremask in a loop while dumping
>>>>>core. Do you have enough locking to make it work as expected?)
>>>>
>>>>Currently, any lock isn't acquired.  But I think the kernel only
>>>>have to preserve the coremask setting in a local variable at the
>>>>begining of core dumping.  I'm going to do this in the next version.
>>>
>>>No, I do not think that is enough. At minimum, you'd need atomic_t
>>>variable. But I'd recomend against it. Playing with locking is tricky.
>>
>>Why do you think it is not enough?  I think that any locking is not
>>needed.
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
>>  unsigned int mask = current->mm->coremask;
> 
> Not a valid C; coremask can change from another cpu.

Sure.  Although I thought it was no problem because coremask uses only
1 bit, it will be problematic when coremask grows beyond byte alignment.


>>>No, I do not think that is enough. At minimum, you'd need atomic_t
>>>variable. But I'd recomend against it. Playing with locking is tricky.

But Andrew proposed:

> Regarding the implementation: if we add
> 
> 	unsigned char coredump_omit_anon_memory:1;
> 
> into the mm_struct right next to `dumpable' then we avoid increasing the
> size of the mm_struct, and the code gets neater.

So I'm going to use a bit field to store the bitmask. Because of this,
I can't use an atomic_t variable.
Instead, I'll use a spin lock to read/write atomically.

Best regards,
-- 
Hidehiro Kawai
Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory


-
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/