[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140625182012.GA19437@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:20:12 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...omium.org>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 9/9] seccomp: implement SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC
On 06/25, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > However, do_execve() takes cred_guard_mutex at the start in prepare_bprm_creds()
> > and drops it in install_exec_creds(), so it should solve the problem?
>
> I can't tell yet. I'm still trying to understand the order of
> operations here. It looks like de_thread() takes the sighand lock.
> do_execve_common does:
>
> prepare_bprm_creds (takes cred_guard_mutex)
> check_unsafe_exec (checks nnp to set LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS)
> prepare_binprm (handles suid escalation, checks nnp separately)
> security_bprm_set_creds (checks LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS)
> exec_binprm
> load_elf_binary
> flush_old_exec
> de_thread (takes and releases sighand->lock)
> install_exec_creds (releases cred_guard_mutex)
Yes, and note that when cred_guard_mutex is dropped all other threads
are already killed,
> I don't see a way to use cred_guard_mutex during tsync (which holds
> sighand->lock) without dead-locking. What were you considering here?
Just take/drop current->signal->cred_guard_mutex along with ->siglock
in seccomp_set_mode_filter() ? Unconditionally on depending on
SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC.
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