[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090330014040.GA4807@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:40:40 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joe Malicki <jmalicki@...acarta.com>,
Michael Itz <mitz@...acarta.com>,
Kenneth Baker <bakerk@...acarta.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuid
sometimes doesn't)
On 03/30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 03/30, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 02:08:43AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > > So...
> > > * check_unsafe_exec() locks current->fs shared, goes through all
> > > threads comparing their ->fs with our, if the number doesn't match - bail
> > > out. Otherwise we mark it "under exec".
>
> Unless I missed something again, check_unsafe_exec() should check "under exec"
> after it takes fs->lock. If set - we are racing with sub-thread, return -EAGAIN.
>
> We can't proceed. If that another exec() fails, it will clear "under exec" at
> the end of do_execve(), before we kill other threads.
Or we need a counter to mark/unmark.
Oleg.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists