linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Was: deferring _

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: <1341234091.2166.5.camel@falcor>
Date:	Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:01:31 -0400
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	". James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Was: deferring __fput()

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 13:02 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 07:49:50AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 
> > > > > pid=1 uid=0 d_name=init comm=swapper/0 dev="rootfs" mode=100775
> > > > > pid=1 uid=0 d_name=bash comm=swapper/0 dev="rootfs" mode=100755
> > > > 
> > > > OK...  Here's what I suspect is going on:
> > > > 	* populating initramfs writes binaries there.  We open files (for write) from
> > > > the kernel thread (there's nothing other than kernel threads at that point), write to
> > > > them, then close().  Final fput() gets delayed.
> > > > 	* Then we proceed to execve().  Which means mapping the binary with MAP_DENYWRITE.
> > > > Which fails, since there's a struct file still opened for write on that sucker.
> > > > 
> > > > Your patch did not delay those fput() - they were done without ->mmap_sem held.  So
> > > > it survived.  Booting without initramfs always survives; booting with initramfs may
> > > > or may not survive, depending on the timings - if that scheduled work manages to
> > > > run by the time we do those execve(), we win.  Note that async_synchronize_full()
> > > > done in init_post() might easily affect that, depending on config.
> > > > 
> > > > As a quick test, could you try slapping a delay somewhere around the beginning
> > > > of init_post() and see if it rescues the system?
> > > 
> > > Ho-hum...  How about this (modulo missing documentation of the whole sad mess):
> > 
> > Sorry, neither adding the delay or this patch helped.
> 
> Really odd.  Could you print the error returned by kernel_execve() in run_init_process()?
> At least that way we'll get some indication of what's going on there.  Another thing:
> could you slap matching printks into the nested if() in fput() and the loop in
> delayed_fput(), just to see if we do get __fput() done on all the right struct file?
> Just "fput: %p", file and "delayed_fput: %p", file would probably be enough.

ok, it calls delayed_fput(), but never makes it into the delayed_fput()
while statement.  I added an additional printk to make sure
delayed_fput() was being called.

delayed_fput:
fput: xxxx
run_init_process: -26
failed to execute /init

run_init_process: -2
run_init_process: -2
run_init_process: -2

delayed_fput:
fput: xxxx
run_init_process: -26

> I'm assuming that I hadn't misparsed what you wrote and that __fput() in nested
> if() in fput() was enough to get the thing working.  Could you confirm that?

Yes, everything is exactly as you described.

Mimi

--
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/