linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 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]

Message-ID: <1eca343b-19c7-a82c-d7ac-b3aea288b56b@vivier.eu>
Date:   Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:53:11 +0200
From:   Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/1] ns: add binfmt_misc to the user namespace

Le 16/10/2018 à 12:13, Rasmus Villemoes a écrit :
> On 2018-10-10 18:14, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> 
>> +	/* 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();
>> +		WRITE_ONCE(ns->binfmt_ns, new_ns);
>> +	}
> 
> If ns->binfmt_ns can really change under us (given you use READ_ONCE),
> what prevents two instances of this code running at the same time, in
> which case one of them would leak its new_ns instance? Also, there

See
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1782780.html

> doesn't seem to be any smp_rmb() buddy to that wmb(), I don't think
> that's implied by READ_ONCE() in binfmt_ns().

See
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1783049.html

Thanks,
Laurent