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  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, 30 Apr 2019 16:24:03 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <>
To:     Michal Koutný <>
Cc:     Kirill Tkhai <>,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: get_cmdline use arg_lock instead of mmap_sem

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:56:10PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 01:45:17PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov <> wrote:
> > It setups these parameters unconditionally. I need to revisit
> > this moment. Technically (if only I'm not missing something
> > obvious) we might have a race here with prctl setting up new
> > params, but this should be harmless since most of them (except
> > stack setup) are purely informative data.
> FTR, when I reviewed that usage, I noticed it was missing the
> synchronization. My understanding was that the mm_struct isn't yet
> shared at this moment. I can see some of the operations take place after
> flush_old_exec (where current->mm = mm_struct), so potentially it is
> shared since then. OTOH, I guess there aren't concurrent parties that
> could access the field at this stage of exec.

Just revisited this code -- we're either executing prctl, either execve.
Since both operates with current task we're safe.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists