linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ptrace: Allow other threads to access tracee

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210312170709.GD27820@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:07:10 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Jim Newsome <jnewsome@...project.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: Allow other threads to access tracee

On 03/11, Jim Newsome wrote:
>
> I suppose even if the corruption of the register-values-themselves is
> acceptable, some synchronization may be needed to avoid the possibility
> of corrupting the kernel's data structures?

Yes, the kernel can crash. Just look at the comment above ptrace_freeze_traced().
The kernel assumes that the tracee is frozen, in particular it can't exit.
Say, ptrace_peek_siginfo() can crash the tracee exits and clears ->sighand,
and this can obviously happen if another thread does PTRACE_CONT + SIGKILL.

> Is it "just" a matter of adding some locking? Would a relatively coarse
> lock on the target task over the duration of the ptrace call

Yes I think needs a mutex in task_struct. But honestly I am not sure
it makes sense.... I dunno.

> (which I
> believe is always non-blocking?)

Why? It is blocking.

Oleg.