linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 01/38] posix-cpu-timers: Provide task validation functions

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908231732030.1896@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 17:33:12 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 01/38] posix-cpu-timers: Provide task validation
 functions

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:33:56AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:08:48PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > The code contains three slightly different copies of validating whether a
> > > given clock resolves to a valid task and whether the current caller has
> > > permissions to access it.
> > > 
> > > Create central functions. Replace check_clock() as a first step and rename
> > > it to something sensible.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c |   65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > >  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > --- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
> > > @@ -35,27 +35,52 @@ void update_rlimit_cpu(struct task_struc
> > >  	spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static int check_clock(const clockid_t which_clock)
> > > +/*
> > > + * Functions for validating access to tasks.
> > > + */
> > > +static struct task_struct *lookup_task(const pid_t pid, bool thread)
> > >  {
> > > -	int error = 0;
> > >  	struct task_struct *p;
> > > -	const pid_t pid = CPUCLOCK_PID(which_clock);
> > >  
> > > -	if (CPUCLOCK_WHICH(which_clock) >= CPUCLOCK_MAX)
> > > -		return -EINVAL;
> > > +	if (!pid)
> > > +		return thread ? current : current->group_leader;
> > >  
> > > -	if (pid == 0)
> > > -		return 0;
> > > +	p = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
> > > +	if (!p || p == current)
> > > +		return p;
> > 
> > What if (p == current && !thread && !has_group_leader_pid(p)) ?
> 
> Ah looking at the next patch, posix_cpu_clock_get_task() and posix_cpu_clock_getres()
> had different ad-hoc checks for this specific case.
> 
> clock_getres() used to return -EINVAL while clock_get() doesn't
> care. They certainly should agree in their behaviour. I'm not sure which
> one is correct. It probably doesn't matter much.

Let me stare on the different variants again

Thanks,

	tglx