linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v5 1/1] ns: add binfmt

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]

Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:45:15 +0200
From:   Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Andrei Vagin (C)" <avagin@...il.com>,
        "containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 1/1] ns: add binfmt_misc to the user namespace

Le 09/10/2018 à 18:15, Kirill Tkhai a écrit :
> On 09.10.2018 13:37, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> This patch allows to have a different binfmt_misc configuration
>> for each new user namespace. By default, the binfmt_misc configuration
>> is the one of the previous level, but if the binfmt_misc filesystem is
>> mounted in the new namespace a new empty binfmt instance is created and
>> used in this namespace.
>>
>> For instance, using "unshare" we can start a chroot of an another
>> architecture and configure the binfmt_misc interpreter without being root
>> to run the binaries in this chroot.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>
>> ---
>>  fs/binfmt_misc.c               | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>  include/linux/user_namespace.h |  13 ++++
>>  kernel/user.c                  |  13 ++++
>>  kernel/user_namespace.c        |   3 +
>>  4 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/binfmt_misc.c b/fs/binfmt_misc.c
>> index aa4a7a23ff99..1e0029d097d9 100644
>> --- a/fs/binfmt_misc.c
>> +++ b/fs/binfmt_misc.c
...
>> @@ -80,18 +74,32 @@ static int entry_count;
>>   */
>>  #define MAX_REGISTER_LENGTH 1920
>>  
>> +static struct binfmt_namespace *binfmt_ns(struct user_namespace *ns)
>> +{
>> +	struct binfmt_namespace *b_ns;
>> +
>> +	while (ns) {
>> +		b_ns = READ_ONCE(ns->binfmt_ns);
>> +		if (b_ns)
>> +			return b_ns;
>> +		ns = ns->parent;
>> +	}
>> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>> +	return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
...
>> @@ -823,12 +847,34 @@ static const struct super_operations s_ops = {
>>  static int bm_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>>  {
>>  	int err;
>> +	struct user_namespace *ns = sb->s_user_ns;
>>  	static const struct tree_descr bm_files[] = {
>>  		[2] = {"status", &bm_status_operations, S_IWUSR|S_IRUGO},
>>  		[3] = {"register", &bm_register_operations, S_IWUSR},
>>  		/* last one */ {""}
>>  	};
>>  
>> +	/* create a new binfmt namespace
>> +	 * if we are not in the first user namespace
>> +	 * but the binfmt namespace is the first one
>> +	 */
>> +	if (READ_ONCE(ns->binfmt_ns) == NULL) {
>> +		struct binfmt_namespace *new_ns;
>> +
>> +		new_ns = kmalloc(sizeof(struct binfmt_namespace),
>> +				 GFP_KERNEL);
>> +		if (new_ns == NULL)
>> +			return -ENOMEM;
>> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&new_ns->entries);
>> +		new_ns->enabled = 1;
>> +		rwlock_init(&new_ns->entries_lock);
>> +		new_ns->bm_mnt = NULL;
>> +		new_ns->entry_count = 0;
>> +		/* ensure new_ns is completely initialized before sharing it */
>> +		smp_wmb();
> 
> (I haven't dived into patch logic, here just small barrier remark from quick sight).
> smp_wmb() has no sense without paired smp_rmb() on the read side. Possible,
> you want something like below in read hunk:
> 
> +		b_ns = READ_ONCE(ns->binfmt_ns);
> +		if (b_ns) {
> +			smp_rmb();
> +			return b_ns;
> +		}
> 
> 

The write barrier is here to ensure the structure is fully written
before we set the pointer.

I don't understand how read barrier can change something at this level,
IMHO the couple WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE() should be enough to ensure we
have correctly initialized the pointer and the structure when we read
the pointer back.

I think the pointer itself is the "barrier" to access the memory
modified before.

Thanks,
Laurent