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: <20090421163957.GD5402@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:39:57 +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:
> > On 04/01, 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Can't resist! I dislike the "in_exec && -EAGAIN" oddity too.
> >
> > Yes sure, we can't break the "well written" applications. But imho this
> > looks strange. And a bit "assymetrical" wrt LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE, I mean
> > check_unsafe_exec() allows sub-threads to race or CLONE_FS but only if
> > LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE.
> >
> > Another reason, we can have the "my test-case found something strange"
> > bug-reports.
> >
> > So. Please feel free to nack or just ignore this message, but since I
> > personally dislike the current behaviour I should at least try to suggest
> > something else.
>
> I didn't spend very long on this: it looked rather equivalent to the
> current->fs->cred_exec_mutex patch that I proposed, but spinning its
> own infrastructure rather than relying on the existing mutex (and of
> course based on top of Al's patches, now in the tree, which have
> changed the path of least resistance).
>
> I've probably missed subtleties, but I still prefer my own suggestion;
> though Al hinted at a subtle problem with that which I never grasped.

I like your patch more too. Except it has problems with unshare_fs() as
Al pointed out.

I agree, this fs->in_exec_wait_ptr looks really ugly, so...

> Of course I agree with you sharing my unease at -EAGAIN and in_exec.
> Maybe we just lie in wait preparing a "told you so" for when someone
> reports "something strange"!  But I'd really like to see your fix
> patch go in.

Perhaps I'll try to make the patch later, but I am not sure I send it ;)
In any case it complicates the code.

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/