linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.5] c/r: prctl: less paranoid prctl_set_mm_exe

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: <4FDCA875.6040905@openvz.org>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:38:29 +0400
From:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.5] c/r: prctl: less paranoid prctl_set_mm_exe_file()

Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 01:42:23PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>> Side note: there is a little nit with this patch actually,
>>> because while when we do c/r we do "right things" and unmap
>>> all vm-executable mappings before we set up new exe_file. But
>>> we can't guarantee that some brave soul would not setup
>>> new exe-file just for it's own, then what we migh have
>>>
>>>   - mm::exe_file set up and points to some file, moreover num_exe_file_vmas might be>   1
>>>   - application calls for prctl_set_mm_exe_file
>>>   - set_mm_exe_file(mm, exe_file) called, and it drops num_exe_file_vmas to 0
>>>   - finally application might call for removed_exe_file_vma
>>>
>>> void removed_exe_file_vma(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>> {
>>> 	mm->num_exe_file_vmas--;
>>> 	if ((mm->num_exe_file_vmas == 0)&&   mm->exe_file) {
>>> 		fput(mm->exe_file);
>>> 		mm->exe_file = NULL;
>>> 	}
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> and it does _not_ test for num_exe_file_vmas being 0 before doing decrement,
>>> thus we get inconsistency in counter.
>>
>> No, removed_exe_file_vma() is called only for vma with VM_EXECUTABLE flag,
>> there no way to get such vma other than sys_execve().
>> And this brave soul cannot call prctl_set_mm_exe_file() successfully,
>> just because for vma with VM_EXECUTABLE flag vma->vm_file == mm->exe_file.
>>
>> Anyway, I plan to get rid of mm->num_exe_file_vmas and VM_EXECUTABLE.
>
> Yeah, you've changed !path_equal to path_equal. And yes, getting rid of
> num_exe_file_vmas is good idea. Btw, Konstantin, why do we need to
> call for path_equal? Maybe we can simply test for mm->exe_file == NULL,
> and refuse to change anything if it's not nil value? This will simplify
> the code.

After removing VM_EXECUTABLE and mm->num_exe_file_vmas mm->exe_file
will never becomes NULL automatically. Patch for this not commited yet,
but I hope it will be in 3.6.

>
> 	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/