linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] move cred_guard_mutex from task_struct to signal

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:	Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:51:54 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com,
	Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>,
	Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, pageexec@...email.hu,
	"Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>, Eugene Teo" 
	<eugene@...hat.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move cred_guard_mutex from task_struct to signal_struct

> On 09/10, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >
> > 1) moving cread_guard_mutex itself
> >    - no increase execve overhead
> > 	-> very good
> >    - it also prevent parallel ptrace
> 
> No, it doesn't. Only PTRACE_ATTACH needs this mutex, and as Roland
> pointed out it also needs write_lock(tasklist) which is worse. So
> this change doesn't make any practical harm for ptrace.

I see, thanks.

> 
> > 2) move in_exec_mm to signal_struct too
> >    -> very hard. oom-killer can use very few lock because it's called
> >       from various place. now both ->mm and ->in_exec_mm are protected
> >       task_lock() and it help to avoid messy.
> 
> Yes. But, if ->in_exec_mm is only used by oom_badness(), then I think
> you can use task_lock(tsk->group_leader). oom_badness() needs tasklist
> anyway, this means it can't race with de_thread() changing the leader.
> But up to you.

Good idea. will fix.

> 
> Another very minor nit (but again, up to you). Perhaps exec_mmap()
> could clear ->in_exec_mm (in task_struct or signal_struct, this doesnt
> matter), it takes task_lock(current) anyway (and at this point current
> is always the group leader).

Thanks. will fix.


> 
> > Let's move ->cred_guard_mutex from task_struct to signal_struct. It
> > naturally prevent multiple-threads-inside-exec.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> 
> 
> This is very minor, but perhaps you can also fix a couple of comments
> which mention task->cred_guard_mutex,
> 
> 	fs/exec.c:1109		the caller must hold current->cred_guard_mutex
> 	kernel/cred.c:328	The caller must hold current->cred_guard_mutex
> 	include/linux/tracehook.h:153	@task->cred_guard_mutex

Will fix, of cource.




--
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/