linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] secure unlock_task

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: <20131221182703.GA11516@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:27:04 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	naveen yadav <yad.naveen@...il.com>,
	Vaibhav Shinde <v.bhav.shinde@...il.com>,
	Ajeet Yadav <ajeet.yadav.77@...il.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] secure unlock_task_sighand() call

On 12/21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> We have coredump serialization in exit_mm() that I think *should* make
> this all ok - if we still see p->mm matching our mm,

Yes. And the comment says:

	lock_task_sighand(p)
	must be used. Since p->mm != NULL and we hold ->mmap_sem
	it can't fail.

IOW, this task can't pass exit_mm() and thus lock_task_sighand() can't
fail.

> >                 do {
> >                         if (p->mm) {
> >                                 if (unlikely(p->mm == mm)) {
> > -                                       lock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
> > -                                       nr += zap_process(p, exit_code);
> > -                                       unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
> > +                                       if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags) {
> > +                                               nr += zap_process(p, exit_code);
> > +                                               unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
> > +                                       }

I too do not think this is needed. But perhaps BUG_ON() make sense.

Note: just in case, this has another problem: while_each_thread() is racy.
We already have the initial fixes in -mm, this code (as other users)
should be converted to use for_each_thread(), I'll send the patch(es).

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/