[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120215175319.GG4533@moon>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:53:19 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + syscalls-x86-add-__nr_kcmp-syscall-v8.patch added to -mm tree
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 05:22:22PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > So I don't understand how it's different from what
> > is provided in this patch. What I'm missing?
>
> environ_read() does
>
> mm = mm_access(task);
> if (mm)
> do_something(mm);
>
> even if it races with, say, execve(setuid_app) we can't read the
> new ->mm.
Wait, I'm confused
process 1 (reader) process 2 ("task" itself)
mm = mm_access(task);
task changes own credentials
so reader can't access on next
read if it would try, but since
access already granted... it
continues do_something(mm)
if (mm)
do_something(mm);
So in the patch I tried the same, once access is granted it
belongs to a caller.
>
> while your code (very roughly) does something like
>
> mm = mm_access(task);
> if (mm)
> do_something(task->mm);
>
> while it is quite possible that mm != task->mm.
Oleg, could you please explain me where it happens
that task->mm (I've got access to) will be changed
to some new -mm while I'm inspecting it.
If permission changed while the caller inside syscall,
it's the same situation as with mm_access above. No?
>
> My only point is: this check is obviously racy, and thus it looks
> confusing. Whether this is fine or not, I do not know. Personally
> I see no reason for ptrace_may_access(), but I am not security
> expert.
The idea was -- non-privilege caller should not have access
to privileged tasks.
Cyrill
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists