[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120309134732.GA3696@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:47:32 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Cc: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] c/r: prctl: Add ability to set new mm_struct::exe_file v3
On 03/09, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:57:35PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> >
> > yeah, thanks, will update.
> >
>
> This one should fit all requirements I hope.
Oh, sorry Cyrill, I simply can't resist...
> +static int prctl_set_mm_exe_file(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned int fd)
> +{
> + struct file *exe_file;
> + struct dentry *dentry;
> + int err;
> +
> + if (mm->num_exe_file_vmas)
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> + exe_file = fget(fd);
> + if (!exe_file)
> + return -EBADF;
> +
> + dentry = exe_file->f_path.dentry;
> +
> + /*
> + * Because the original mm->exe_file
> + * points to executable file, make sure
> + * this one is executable as well to not
> + * break an overall picture.
> + */
> + err = -EACCES;
> + if (!S_ISREG(dentry->d_inode->i_mode) ||
> + exe_file->f_path.mnt->mnt_flags & MNT_NOEXEC)
> + goto exit;
> +
> + err = inode_permission(dentry->d_inode, MAY_EXEC);
> + if (err)
> + goto exit;
> +
> + /*
> + * Setting new mm::exe_file is only allowed
> + * when no VM_EXECUTABLE vma's left. This is
> + * a special C/R case when a restored program
> + * need to change own /proc/$pid/exe symlink.
> + * After this call mm::num_exe_file_vmas become
> + * meaningless. If mm::num_exe_file_vmas will
> + * ever increase back from zero -- this code
> + * needs to be revised, thus WARN_ here, just
> + * to be sure.
To be shure in what??
> + */
> + down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(mm->num_exe_file_vmas);
We already checked it is zero. Yes, it shouldn't grow. But why
do we need another check here?
If it can grow, it can grow after we drop mmap_sem as well and
this would be wrong. So may be we need another WARN_ON() at the
end?
I'd understand if you add something like
WARN_ON(!mm->num_exe_file_vmas && !current->in_exec);
into added_exe_file_vma().
Or
WARN_ON(mm->num_exe_file_vmas <= 0);
into removed_exe_file_vma().
But imho your WARN looks like "OK, I checked it lockless but I
am not sure this is correct".
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists