linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1

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:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 05:00:03 +0200
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:20 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 6:08 PM Bernd Edlinger
> <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de> wrote:
> >
> > I added the BIG FAT WARNNIG comments as a mitigation for that.
> > Did you like those comments?
>
> No.
>
> What's the point olf saying "THIS CODE IS GARBAGE" and then expecting
> that to make it ok?
>
> No,m that doesn't make it ok. It just means that it should have been
> done differently.
>
> > Yes, exactly, the point is the caller is expected to call wait in that
> > scenario, otherwise the -EAGAIN just repeats forever, that is an API
> > change, yes, but something unavoidable, and the patch tries hard to
> > limit it to cases where the live-lock or pseudo-dead-lock is unavoidable
> > anyway.
>
> I'm getting really fed up with your insistence on that KNOWN BROKEN
> garbage test-case.
>
> It's shit. The test-case is wrong. I've told you before.
>
> Your patch as-is breaks other cases that are *not* wrong in the kernel
> currently, and that don't have test-cases because they JustWork(tm).
>
> The livelock isn't interesting. The test-case that shows it is pure
> garbage, and is written wrong.
>
> IF that test-case hadn't been buggy in the first place, it would have
> had ignored its child (or had a handler for SIGCHLD), and not
> livelocked.

But if we go with Bernd's approach together with your restart
suggestion, then simply doing PTRACE_ATTACH on two threads A and B
would be enough to livelock, right?

tracer: PTRACE_ATTACHes to A
B: enters de_thread()
tracer: attempts to PTRACE_ATTACH to B

Now the tracer will loop on PTRACE_ATTACH, right?