[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez2h51s1VG8hf1ASHHq88r5b+6rS4nSkgvre77jgsJLbhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 22:33:34 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] seccomp: introduce read protection for struct seccomp
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:47 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws> wrote:
> As Jann pointed out, there is a race between SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC and
> the ptrace code that can inspect a filter of another process. Let's
> introduce read locking into the two ptrace accesses so that we don't race.
Hmm. Is that true? The ptrace code uses get_nth_filter(), which holds
the siglock while grabbing the seccomp filter and bumping its
refcount. And TSYNC happens from seccomp_set_mode_filter(), which
takes the siglock. So this looks okay to me?
> Signed-off-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
> Reported-by: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
> CC: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
> ---
> include/linux/seccomp.h | 4 ++--
> kernel/seccomp.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/seccomp.h b/include/linux/seccomp.h
> index 8429bdda947a..30b27e898162 100644
> --- a/include/linux/seccomp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/seccomp.h
> @@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ struct seccomp_filter;
> * @filter: must always point to a valid seccomp-filter or NULL as it is
> * accessed without locking during system call entry.
> *
> - * @filter must only be accessed from the context of current as there
> - * is no read locking.
> + * @filter is read-protected by task->signal->cred_guard_mutex when
> + * outside of current context.
> */
> struct seccomp {
> int mode;
> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> index ef80dd19f268..f65d47650ac1 100644
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -1042,7 +1042,12 @@ int seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long filter_off,
> return -EACCES;
> }
>
> + ret = mutex_lock_killable(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> filter = get_nth_filter(task, filter_off);
> + mutex_unlock(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> if (IS_ERR(filter))
> return PTR_ERR(filter);
>
> @@ -1088,7 +1093,12 @@ int seccomp_get_metadata(struct task_struct *task,
> if (copy_from_user(&kmd.filter_off, data, sizeof(kmd.filter_off)))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> + ret = mutex_lock_killable(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> filter = get_nth_filter(task, kmd.filter_off);
> + mutex_unlock(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> if (IS_ERR(filter))
> return PTR_ERR(filter);
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists