linux-kernel - [v2.6.34-stable 087/213] ptrace: ptrace_resume() shouldn't wake up !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]

Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:00:42 -0500
From:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
To:	<stable@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: [v2.6.34-stable 087/213] ptrace: ptrace_resume() shouldn't wake up !TASK_TRACED thread

From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>

                   -------------------
    This is a commit scheduled for the next v2.6.34 longterm release.
    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/paulg/longterm-queue-2.6.34.git
    If you see a problem with using this for longterm, please comment.
                   -------------------

commit 0666fb51b1483f27506e212cc7f7b2645b5c7acc upstream.

It is not clear why ptrace_resume() does wake_up_process(). Unless the
caller is PTRACE_KILL the tracee should be TASK_TRACED so we can use
wake_up_state(__TASK_TRACED). If sys_ptrace() races with SIGKILL we do
not need the extra and potentionally spurious wakeup.

If the caller is PTRACE_KILL, wake_up_process() is even more wrong.
The tracee can sleep in any state in any place, and if we have a buggy
code which doesn't handle a spurious wakeup correctly PTRACE_KILL can
be used to exploit it. For example:

	int main(void)
	{
		int child, status;

		child = fork();
		if (!child) {
			int ret;

			assert(ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, 0,0,0) == 0);

			ret = pause();
			printf("pause: %d %m\n", ret);

			return 0x23;
		}

		sleep(1);
		assert(ptrace(PTRACE_KILL, child, 0,0) == 0);

		assert(child == wait(&status));
		printf("wait: %x\n", status);

		return 0;
	}

prints "pause: -1 Unknown error 514", -ERESTARTNOHAND leaks to the
userland. In this case sys_pause() is buggy as well and should be
fixed.

I do not know what was the original rationality behind PTRACE_KILL.
The man page is simply wrong and afaics it was always wrong. Imho
it should be deprecated, or may be it should do send_sig(SIGKILL)
as Denys suggests, but in any case I do not think that the current
behaviour was intentional.

Note: there is another problem, ptrace_resume() changes ->exit_code
and this can race with SIGKILL too. Eventually we should change ptrace
to not use ->exit_code.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
---
 kernel/ptrace.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/ptrace.c b/kernel/ptrace.c
index b7b491e6c25b..9450ec22e5a6 100644
--- a/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ static int ptrace_resume(struct task_struct *child, long request, long data)
 	}

 	child->exit_code = data;
-	wake_up_process(child);
+	wake_up_state(child, __TASK_TRACED);

 	return 0;
 }
-- 
1.8.5.2

--
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/