[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez0ivQ+gfwKMife-3ZwBuqAuc1BhDGW3dtYTHMq0sByuNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 13:56:47 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: restore smp_rmb() in __ptrace_may_access()
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 2:35 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 05/29, Jann Horn wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/cred.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cred.c
> > @@ -450,6 +450,15 @@ int commit_creds(struct cred *new)
> > if (task->mm)
> > set_dumpable(task->mm, suid_dumpable);
> > task->pdeath_signal = 0;
> > + /*
> > + * If a task drops privileges and becomes nondumpable,
> > + * the dumpability change must become visible before
> > + * the credential change; otherwise, a __ptrace_may_access()
> > + * racing with this change may be able to attach to a task it
> > + * shouldn't be able to attach to (as if the task had dropped
> > + * privileges without becoming nondumpable).
> > + * Pairs with a read barrier in __ptrace_may_access().
> > + */
> > smp_wmb();
>
> Hmm. Now that I tried to actually read this patch I do not understand this wmb().
>
> commit_creds() does rcu_assign_pointer(real_cred) which implies smp_store_release(),
> the dumpability change must be visible before ->real_cred is updated without any
> additional barriers?
Oh, yes, I think you're right.
So I guess I should make a v2 that still adds the smp_rmb() in
__ptrace_may_access(), but gets rid of the smp_wmb() in
commit_creds()? (With a comment above the rcu_assign_pointer() that
explains the ordering?)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists