| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130307180332.GE29601@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:03:32 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep trace from prepare_bprm_creds
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:01:39AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Oleg.
>
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 06:25:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > [ 944.011126] Chain exists of:
> > > &sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9 --> cgroup_mutex --> &sig->cred_guard_mutex
> > >
> > > [ 944.012745] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > >
> > > [ 944.013617] CPU0 CPU1
> > > [ 944.014280] ---- ----
> > > [ 944.014942] lock(&sig->cred_guard_mutex);
> > > [ 944.021332] lock(cgroup_mutex);
> > > [ 944.028094] lock(&sig->cred_guard_mutex);
> > > [ 944.035007] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9);
> > > [ 944.041602]
> >
> > And cgroup_mount() does i_mutex -> cgroup_mutex...
>
> Hmmm...
>
> > Add cc's. I do not think we can move open_exec() outside of cred_guard_mutex.
> > We can change do_execve_common(), but binfmt->load_binary() does open() too.
> >
> > And it is not easy to avoid ->cred_guard_mutex in threadgroup_lock(), we can't
> > change de_thread() to do threadgroup_change_begin/end...
> >
> > Or perhaps we can? It doesn't need to sleep under ->group_rwsem, we only
> > need it around ->group_leader changing. Otherwise cgroup_attach_proc()
> > can rely on do_exit()->threadgroup_change_begin() ?
>
> Using cred_guard_mutex was mostly to avoid adding another locking in
> de_thread() path as it already had one. We can add group_rwsem
> locking deeper inside and avoid this problem.
>
> > But perhaps someone can suggest another fix in cgroup.c.
>
> Another possibility is moving cgroup_lock outside threadgroup_lock(),
> which was impossible before because of cgroup_lock abuses in specific
> controller implementations but most of that have been updated and we
> should now be pretty close to being able to make cgroup_lock outer to
> most other locks. Appending a completely untested patch below.
>
> Li, what do you think?
Oops, it was the wrong patch. Here's the correct one.
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
index a32f943..e7e5e57 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -2193,17 +2193,13 @@ static int attach_task_by_pid(struct cgroup *cgrp, u64 pid, bool threadgroup)
const struct cred *cred = current_cred(), *tcred;
int ret;
- if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
- return -ENODEV;
-
retry_find_task:
rcu_read_lock();
if (pid) {
tsk = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
if (!tsk) {
rcu_read_unlock();
- ret= -ESRCH;
- goto out_unlock_cgroup;
+ return -ESRCH;
}
/*
* even if we're attaching all tasks in the thread group, we
@@ -2214,8 +2210,7 @@ retry_find_task:
!uid_eq(cred->euid, tcred->uid) &&
!uid_eq(cred->euid, tcred->suid)) {
rcu_read_unlock();
- ret = -EACCES;
- goto out_unlock_cgroup;
+ return -EACCES;
}
} else
tsk = current;
@@ -2229,36 +2224,37 @@ retry_find_task:
* with no rt_runtime allocated. Just say no.
*/
if (tsk == kthreadd_task || (tsk->flags & PF_THREAD_BOUND)) {
- ret = -EINVAL;
rcu_read_unlock();
- goto out_unlock_cgroup;
+ return -EINVAL;
}
get_task_struct(tsk);
rcu_read_unlock();
threadgroup_lock(tsk);
- if (threadgroup) {
- if (!thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
- /*
- * a race with de_thread from another thread's exec()
- * may strip us of our leadership, if this happens,
- * there is no choice but to throw this task away and
- * try again; this is
- * "double-double-toil-and-trouble-check locking".
- */
- threadgroup_unlock(tsk);
- put_task_struct(tsk);
- goto retry_find_task;
- }
- ret = cgroup_attach_proc(cgrp, tsk);
- } else
- ret = cgroup_attach_task(cgrp, tsk);
- threadgroup_unlock(tsk);
+ if (threadgroup && !thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
+ /*
+ * a race with de_thread from another thread's exec() may
+ * strip us of our leadership, if this happens, there is no
+ * choice but to throw this task away and try again; this
+ * is "double-double-toil-and-trouble-check locking".
+ */
+ threadgroup_unlock(tsk);
+ put_task_struct(tsk);
+ goto retry_find_task;
+ }
+ ret = -ENODEV;
+ if (cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp)) {
+ if (threadgroup)
+ ret = cgroup_attach_proc(cgrp, tsk);
+ else
+ ret = cgroup_attach_task(cgrp, tsk);
+ cgroup_unlock();
+ }
+
+ threadgroup_unlock(tsk);
put_task_struct(tsk);
-out_unlock_cgroup:
- cgroup_unlock();
return ret;
}
--
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