[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f4144a96-58ef-fba7-79f0-e5178147b6bb@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:02:44 +0100
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] signalfd: add support for SFD_TASK
On 28/11/2019 00.27, Jann Horn wrote:
> One more thing, though: We'll have to figure out some way to
> invalidate the fd when the target goes through execve(), in particular
> if it's a setuid execution. Otherwise we'll be able to just steal
> signals that were intended for the other task, that's probably not
> good.
>
> So we should:
> a) prevent using ->wait() on an old signalfd once the task has gone
> through execve()
> b) kick off all existing waiters
> c) most importantly, prevent ->read() on an old signalfd once the
> task has gone through execve()
>
> We probably want to avoid using the cred_guard_mutex here, since it is
> quite broad and has some deadlocking issues; it might make sense to
> put the update of ->self_exec_id in fs/exec.c under something like the
> siglock,
What prevents one from exec'ing a trivial helper 2^32-1 times before
exec'ing into the victim binary?
Rasmus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists