linux-kernel - Re: Q: perf_event && task->ptrace

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:	Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:41:00 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: perf_event && task->ptrace_bps[]

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:56:47PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> I am trying to understand the usage of hw-breakpoints in arch_ptrace().
> ptrace_set_debugreg() and related code looks obviously racy. Nothing
> protects us against flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint() called by the dying
> tracee. Afaics we can leak perf_event or use the already freed memory
> or both.
> 
> Am I missed something?
> 
> Looking into the git history, I don't even know which patch should be
> blamed (if I am right), there were too many changes. I noticed that
> 2ebd4ffb6d0cb877787b1e42be8485820158857e "perf events: Split out task
> search into helper" moved the PF_EXITING check from find_get_context().
> This check coould help if sys_ptrace() races with SIGKILL, but it was
> racy anyway.
> 
> It is not clear to me what should be done. Looking more, I do not
> understand the scope of perf_event/ctx at all, sys_perf_event_open()
> looks wrong too, see the next email I am going to send.
> 
> Oleg.
> 


But I don't understand how ptrace_set_debugreg() and flush_old_exec() can
happen at the same time. The parent can only do the ptrace request when
the child is stopped, right? But it can't be stopped in flush_old_exec()...?

Not sure how any race can happen here. I am certainly missing something obvious.

Thanks.

--
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/