linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/4] (Was: ptrace: prevent 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130120192448.GA6771@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:24:48 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Kernel Security <security@...nel.org>,
	Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
	Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] (Was: ptrace: prevent PTRACE_SETREGS from corrupting
	stack)

add lkml/cc's.

On 01/18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Or we can do this after wait_task_inactive() but then we need to take
> > ->siglock again.
>
> Yes. We absolutely need siglock, since that would be exactly what
> would protect us against signal_wake_up() (which is, I *think* the
> only thing that can ever wake up the TASK_TRACED/WAKEKILL cases).

Yes. And thus 4/4 probably should be 1/4.

> And we'd need to make sure to re-set the WAKEKILL flag not just in all
> the callers of ptrace_check_attach(), but also in the failure case of
> wait_task_inactive(). I'm not sure it can actually fail if we cleared
> WAKEKILL, but it's all pretty subtle.

Afaics it can't fail if we clear WAKEKILL... So 2/4 assumes it should
always succeed and adds the warning.

> And when we *do* set the WAKEKILL bit again, we should make sure to
> wake the task in case the killable signal happened while it was clear.

Yes, yes, this is clear. And we need to ensure we can not race with
attach-after-detach...

> And I agree that this is all pretty scary and generally playing with
> another process' 'flags' field is some really nasty business. So I'm a
> bit worried about it.

Oh yes. And I was going to argue that (a much simpler) change which
doesn't allow the tracee to return from ptrace_stop() is better. But
then I recalled about set_task_blockstep() and changed my mind (see
the changelog in 2/4).

Greg, this doesn't look like -stable material. But please let me know
if you think 2/4 should be backported. With a couple of simple hacks
in PTRACE_DETACH/LISTEN paths we can do this without 1/4 and without
changes outside of ptrace.c. But again, probably we shouldn't do this.

Please review.

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/