linux-kernel - Re: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuid sometimes doesn't)

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904011207400.8870@blonde.anvils>
Date:	Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:18:11 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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 Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:28:01AM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>  
> > Otherwise it looks good to me, except I keep worrying about those
> > EAGAINs.  The more so once I noticed current->cred_exec_mutex is
> > already being used to handle a similar issue with ptrace.  What
> > do you think of this rather smaller patch?  which I'd much rather
> > send after having slept on it, since it may be embarrassingly and
> > obviously wrong, but tomorrow may be too late ...
>  
> Eh...  I'm not particulary happy with fork() growing heavier and heavier.

I don't see it as making fork() any heavier, but never mind.
The important thing is to get a fix out.

> Besides, there's a subtle problem avoided by another variant - think what
> happens if past the point of no return execve() will unshare fs_struct
> (e.g. by explicit unshare() from dynamic linker).

You're too far ahead of me there.

> 
> Frankly, -EAGAIN in situation when we have userland race is fine.  And
> we *do* have a userland race here - execve() will kill -9 those threads
> in case of success, so if they'd been doing something useful, they are
> about to be suddenly screwed.

Good point.  I found it quite odd the way the awkward case (shared
beyond the threadgroup) is allowed to go forward (with possibility
that setuid will be undone), but the easy case is -EAGAINed.  (And
I gave up on trying to find a better name for your "in_exec" flag,
which is rather more subtle than just that!)  But odd as it is,
there's good reason for doing it that way.

> 
> So I stand by my variant.

Fair enough.

> Note that if we have *other* tasks sharing
> fs_struct, your variant will block their clone() for the duration of
> execve() while mine will simply leave them alone (and accept that we
> have unsafe sharing).

Yes, intentional, consistent with the existing cred_exec_mutex technique.

Hugh
--
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/