linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exec: Fix a deadlock in ptrace

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]

Date:   Sun, 1 Mar 2020 19:00:24 +0000
From:   Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
CC:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Christian Kellner <christian@...lner.me>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Fix a deadlock in ptrace

On 3/1/20 7:52 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 07:21:03PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 12:27 PM Bernd Edlinger
>> <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de> wrote:
>>> The proposed solution is to have a second mutex that is
>>> used in mm_access, so it is allowed to continue while the
>>> dying threads are not yet terminated.
>>
>> Just for context: When I proposed something similar back in 2016,
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20161102181806.GB1112@redhat.com/
>> was the resulting discussion thread. At least back then, I looked
>> through the various existing users of cred_guard_mutex, and the only
>> places that couldn't be converted to the new second mutex were
>> PTRACE_ATTACH and SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC.
>>
>>
>> The ideal solution would IMO be something like this: Decide what the
>> new task's credentials should be *before* reaching de_thread(),
>> install them into a second cred* on the task (together with the new
>> dumpability), drop the cred_guard_mutex, and let ptrace_may_access()
>> check against both. After that, some further restructuring might even
> 
> Hm, so essentially a private ptrace_access_cred member in task_struct?
> That would presumably also involve altering various LSM hooks to look at
> ptrace_access_cred.
> 
> (Minor side-note, de_thread() takes a struct task_struct argument but
>  only ever is passed current.)
> 
>> allow the cred_guard_mutex to not be held across all of the VFS
>> operations that happen early on in execve, which may block
>> indefinitely. But that would be pretty complicated, so I think your
>> proposed solution makes sense for now, given that nobody has managed
>> to implement anything better in the last few years.
> 
> Reading through the old threads and how often this issue came up, I tend
> to agree.
> 

Okay, fine.

I managed to change Oleg's test case, into one that shows what exactly
is changed with this patch:


$ cat t.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <sys/signal.h>
#include <sys/ptrace.h>

void *thread(void *arg)
{
	ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, 0,0,0);
	return NULL;
}

int main(void)
{
	int f, pid = fork();
	char mm[64];

	if (!pid) {
		pthread_t pt;
		pthread_create(&pt, NULL, thread, NULL);
		pthread_join(pt, NULL);
		execlp("echo", "echo", "passed", NULL);
	}

	sleep(1);
	sprintf(mm, "/proc/%d/mem", pid);
        printf("open(%s)\n", mm);
	f = open(mm, O_RDONLY);
        printf("f = %d\n", f);
	// this is not fixed! ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, pid, 0,0);
	kill(pid, SIGCONT);
	if (f >= 0)
		close(f);
	return 0;
}
$ gcc -pthread -Wall t.c
$ ./a.out 
open(/proc/2802/mem)
f = 3
$ passed

previously this did block, how can I make a test case for this?
I am not so experienced in this matter.


Thanks
Bernd.