[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140204190007.GA8996@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:00:07 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
David Smith <dsmith@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Igor Zhbanov <i.zhbanov@...sung.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] exec: Fix use after free of tracepoint
trace_sched_process_exec
On 02/04, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Now to fix this we need to save the filename before calling
> search_binary_handler(). But we don't want to save it if we are not
> tracing. Why slow everyone else down?
Yes, but it would be much simpler to dup filename unconditionally.
Note also that in this case we can kill linux_binprm->tcomm[] and
simplify filename_to_taskname().
> This works, but is rather ugly.
Yes ;)
> Looking for any other suggestions here.
Perhaps we can change flush_old_exec() to do
if (!current->mm) {
bprm->filename = kstrdup(bprm->filename);
if (bprm->filename)
bprm->filename_was_dupped = true; // for free_bprm()
else
bprm->filename = "//enomem";
}
This won't penalize the normal exec, and this should fix the problem
afaics.
Perhaps, instead of "//enomem" flush_old_exec() should simply fail,
in this case we can kill bprm->tcomm[] too.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists