linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH] fix SEM

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: <20080401141540.GB13213@sergelap.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:15:41 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] fix SEM_UNDO with namespaces

Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@...nvz.org):
> Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> >> Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >>   
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> the attached patch should fix the combination of CLONE_NEWIPC with 
> >>> shared sysv undo structures (the common case, just 
> >>> sys_unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC)):
> >>> lookup_undo() now locates the undo array based on both semid and the 
> >>> namespace pointer.
> >>>     
> >> If you start using any IPC object and then call unshare with CLONE_NEWIPC,
> >> then it's your problem, but not the kernel.
> >>   
> > The result is a kernel memory corruption, and kernel memory corruptions 
> > are always the kernel's problem.
> 
> Agree. Must be fixed, but I'm not sure we should try handling this
> case by trying to de-op semaphores for former task namespace. I think
> that destroying this list or returning -EBUSY for this case is OK.
> 
> > The code assumed that a semaphore id is globally unique. With 
> > namespaces,  this is not true anymore.
> > If two semaphore arrays exist with the same id, but different sizes, 
> > then semops will cause memory corruptions: The undo structure contains 
> > one element for each semaphore, thus the semop will write behind the end 
> > of the memory allocation.
> > 
> >> I agree, that we should probably destroy this one when the task calls 
> >> unshare, but trying to keep this list relevant is useless.
> >>   
> > A very tricky question: Let's assume we have a process with two threads.
> > The undo structure is shared, as per opengroup standard.
> > Now one thread calls unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC). What should happen? We 
> > cannot destroy the undo structure, the other thread might be still 
> > interested in it.
> > If we allow sys_unshare() for multithreaded processes with CLONE_NEWIPC 
> > and without CLONE_SYSVSEM, then we must handle this case.
> 
> Hm... I'd simply disable creating any new namespaces for threads.
> I think other namespaces developers agree with me. Serge, Suka, Eric
> what do you think?

Absolutely.

-serge
--
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/