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]

Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:10:06 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	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 04/19, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for delay!
>
> Please don't suppose that you can ever beat me at the slowness game!

I am still trying to compete...

> > check_unsafe_exec() doesn't need ->siglock, we can iterate over sub-threads
> > under rcu_read_lock(). Note that with RCU or ->siglock we can set the "wrong"
> > LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE if we race with copy_process(CLONE_THREAD | CLONE_FS), but
> > as it was already discussed we don't care. This means it is OK to miss the
> > freshly cloned thread which has already passed copy_fs().
>
> Yes, I agree.
> And preferable not to have IRQs disabled over that next_thread() loop.

Yes sure, we don't need local_irq_disable(), only rcu_read_lock().

> > T1 does clone(CLONE_FS /* without CLONE_THREAD */).
> >
> > T1 continues without LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE while ->fs is shared with another
> > process.
>
> If I follow you correctly, you meant to say T2 not T1 in the last step.

Yes,

> Yes, I think your clear_in_exec change is a necessary one,
> and your rcu_read_lock well worth while.

OK, I'll send 2 simple patches, the first one kills lock_task_sighand(),
another adds clear_in_exec.

But,

> One tiny change (aside from extending to compat_do_execve):
> Al originally had check_unsafe_exec()'s write_lock(&p->fs->lock)
> after the lock_task_sighand(p, &flags), but was forced to invert
> that by the IRQ issue lockdep flagged.  I think we'd all prefer
> to think of fs->lock as an innermost lock, and would like it
> now to go after your rcu_read_lock().

Since we are not going to disable IRQs, perhaps the above does
not matter? It is always safe to take rcu_read_lock(), no matter
which locks we already hold.

> (You do rcu_read_unlock() earlier, but that's okay.)

Yes, but unless we have a "strong" reason, it is better to take
fs->lock first. rcu_read_lock() is free, but disables preemption.

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/