linux-kernel - Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: introduce arg_lock to protect arg_start|end and env_start|end in mm

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]

Message-ID: <20180326183725.GB27373@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:37:25 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     adobriyan@...il.com, mhocko@...nel.org, mguzik@...hat.com,
        gorcunov@...nvz.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: introduce arg_lock to protect arg_start|end and
 env_start|end in mm_struct

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 02:20:39AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> @@ -1959,7 +1959,7 @@ static int prctl_set_mm_map(int opt, const void __user *addr, unsigned long data
>  			return error;
>  	}
>  
> -	down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> +	down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * We don't validate if these members are pointing to
> @@ -1980,10 +1980,13 @@ static int prctl_set_mm_map(int opt, const void __user *addr, unsigned long data
>  	mm->start_brk	= prctl_map.start_brk;
>  	mm->brk		= prctl_map.brk;
>  	mm->start_stack	= prctl_map.start_stack;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&mm->arg_lock);
>  	mm->arg_start	= prctl_map.arg_start;
>  	mm->arg_end	= prctl_map.arg_end;
>  	mm->env_start	= prctl_map.env_start;
>  	mm->env_end	= prctl_map.env_end;
> +	spin_unlock(&mm->arg_lock);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Note this update of @saved_auxv is lockless thus

I see the argument for the change to a write lock was because of a BUG
validating arg_start and arg_end, but more generally, we are updating these
values, so a write-lock is probably a good idea, and this is a very rare
operation to do, so we don't care about making this more parallel.  I would
not make this change (but if other more knowledgable people in this area
disagree with me, I will withdraw my objection to this part).