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  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:	Sat, 23 Aug 2014 13:53:02 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + prctl-pr_set_mm-introduce-pr_set_mm_map-operation-v3.patch
	added to -mm tree

On 08/23, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 09:22:41PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hi Cyrill,
> >
> > I think the patch is fine but I can't understand the usage of mmap_sem
> > and alloc_lock,
> >
> > > +	stack_vma = find_vma(mm, (unsigned long)prctl_map->start_stack);
> >
> > OK, find_vma() needs mmap_sem. But otherwise, why this should be called
> > under down_read(&mm->mmap_sem) ? What this lock tries to protect?
>
> It should protect from allocation/devetion/mergin of another vma. IOW when
> I lookup for vma I need to be sure it exist and won't disappear at least
> while I validate it.

plus you need mmap_sem (at least for reading) when you update mm_struct,
this is clear.

My question was why the whole function should be called under mmap_sem?
It could take it only around find_vma() + check(RLIMIT_STACK) ?

In fact I do not think we need this vma_stack/RLIMIT_STACK check at all.
It buys nithing and looks strange. RLIMIT_STACK is mostly for self-debugging,
to catch the, say, unlimited recursion. An application can trivially
create a stack region of arbitrary size. I'd seriously suggest to remove it.

> > > +	if (prctl_map.auxv_size) {
> > > +		/* Last entry must be AT_NULL as specification requires */
> > > +		user_auxv[AT_VECTOR_SIZE - 2] = AT_NULL;
> > > +		user_auxv[AT_VECTOR_SIZE - 1] = AT_NULL;
> > > +
> > > +		task_lock(current);
> > > +		memcpy(mm->saved_auxv, user_auxv, sizeof(user_auxv));
> > > +		task_unlock(current);
> >
> > Again, could you explain this task_lock() ?
>
> It is used for serialization access to saved_auxv, ie when we fill it
> with new data the other reader (via procfs interface) should wait until
> we finish.

But proc_pid_auxv() doesn't take this lock? And even if it did, this lock
can't help. task_lock() is per-thread, and multiple threads (including
CLONE_VM tasks, vfork() for example) can share the same ->mm.

This certainly doesn't look right.

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