[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKgSgoWjTXVsnGASsUXSiD9Wq5DSF8_U1XKhhJbNdxyVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:40:38 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Ricky Zhou <rickyz@...gle.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] user_ns: use correct check for single-threadedness
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Ricky Zhou <rickyz@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>>> <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>>>> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Ricky Zhou <rickyz@...omium.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Checking mm_users > 1 does not mean a process is multithreaded. For
>>>>> example, reading /proc/PID/maps temporarily increments mm_users, allowing
>>>>> other processes to (accidentally) interfere with unshare() calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> This fixes observed failures of unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER) incorrectly
>>>>> returning EINVAL if another processes happened to be simultaneously
>>>>> reading the maps file.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ricky Zhou <rickyz@...omium.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>>>
>>>> This looks like a good fix. Any chance you can drudge up the commit where
>>>> this hack came in so that Greg & Company know how far to back port this?
>>>
>>> userns_install in user_namespace.c (affects setns of a user
>>> namespace): cde1975bc242f3e1072bde623ef378e547b73f91.
>>>
>>> The check in check_unshare_flags is a little more complex. The
>>> incorrect check was added in
>>> cf2e340f4249b781b3d2beb41e891d08581f0e10 but I don't think it would
>>> have triggered under any supported combination of flags at that point.
>>>
>>> From 50804fe3737ca6a5942fdc2057a18a8141d00141 until
>>> 6e556ce209b09528dbf1931cbfd5d323e1345926, the bug affected
>>> unshare(CLONE_NEWPID).
>>
>> That's back to v3.8, so this goes quite a way, it seems.
>
> This patch was marked as CC' stable. The question I am asking is this
> problem bad enough that backporting this change to stable makes sense?
I have no problem dropping the CC. At the time it seemed like a clear
bug fix appropriate for stable. If you feel differently, please remove
the CC. :)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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