linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sanitize task->comm to avoid leaking escape codes

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: <20100629173349.GH2765@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:33:49 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sanitize task->comm to avoid leaking escape codes

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 07:18:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/29, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:31:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > So, afaics, set_task_comm()->wmb() buys nothing and should be removed.
> > > The last zero char in task_struct->comm[] is always here, at least this
> > > guarantees that strcpy(char *dest, tsk->comm) is always safe.
> > >
> > > (I cc'ed the expert, Paul can correct me)
> >
> > First, all of the implementations that I can see do task_lock(tsk), which
> > should prevent readers from seeing any changes.  So I am guessing that
> > you guys want to allow readers to get at ->comm without having to acquire
> > this lock.
> 
> Ah, sorry for confusion.
> 
> No, we are not trying to invent the lockless get_task_comm(). I'd say
> it is not needed, if we really care about the precise ->comm we can
> take task->alloc_lock.
> 
> The only problem is that I believe that set_task_comm() wrongly pretends
> wmb() can help the lockless reader, it does:
> 
> 	task_lock(tsk);
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Threads may access current->comm without holding
> 	 * the task lock, so write the string carefully.
> 	 * Readers without a lock may see incomplete new
> 	 * names but are safe from non-terminating string reads.
> 	 */
> 	memset(tsk->comm, 0, TASK_COMM_LEN);
> 	wmb();
> 	strlcpy(tsk->comm, buf, sizeof(tsk->comm));
> 	task_unlock(tsk);
> 
> but afaics this wmb() buys absolutely nothing if we race with the
> reader doing, say,
> 
> 	printk("my name is %s\n", current->comm);
> 
> Afaics, this wmb()
> 
> 	- can't prevent from printing the mixture of the old/new data
> 
> 	- is not needed to make strcpy(somewhere, task->comm) safe,
> 	  the final char is always '0', we never change it.
> 
> 	- adds the unnecessary confusion

I agree -- I cannot see how this wmb() can help.

> > [... snip a lot of good ideas ...]
> 
> Thanks a lot, Paul ;)

Glad you liked them.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/