linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] CRED: Further fix execve error handling

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]

Message-ID: <4783.1219322603@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:43:23 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, a.beregalov@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CRED: Further fix execve error handling

James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:

> How about moving the mutex_unlock() out of free_bprm() and into the 
> calling code ?

Okay, I've sent you a patch to do this.  Note that it only affects the error
handling case.  In the case of a successful execution, install_exec_creds()
will release the mutex when it is safe to do so.  This then permits
PTRACE_ATTACH to take place from that point.  I could shift the unlock so that
it always happens in [compat_]do_execve() - do you think it's worth it?  It
would mean that ptrace wouldn't be able to attach to a process that's still
under construction by the binfmt, which is probably reasonable.

David
--
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/