linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: make TIF_NOTIFY

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:   Wed, 18 Aug 2021 19:57:32 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>,
        Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: make TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL and core dumps co-exist

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:06 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> task_work being added with notify == TWA_SIGNAL will utilize
> TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL for signaling the targeted task that work is available.
> If this happens while a task is going through a core dump, it'll
> potentially disturb and truncate the dump as a signal interruption.

This patch seems (a) buggy and (b) hacky.

> --- a/kernel/task_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/task_work.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,12 @@ int task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work,
>                 head = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
>                 if (unlikely(head == &work_exited))
>                         return -ESRCH;
> +               /*
> +                * TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL notifications will interfere with
> +                * a core dump in progress, reject them.
> +                */
> +               if (notify == TWA_SIGNAL && (task->flags & PF_SIGNALED))
> +                       return -ESRCH;

This basically seems to check task->flags with no serialization.

I'm sure it works 99.9% of the time in practice, since you'd be really
unlucky to hit any races, but I really don't see what the
serialization logic is.

Also, the main user that actually triggered the problem already has

        if (unlikely(tsk->flags & PF_EXITING))
                goto fail;

just above the call to task_work_add(), so this all seems very hacky indeed.

Of course, I don't see what the serialization for _that_ one is either.

Pls explain. You can't just randomly add tests for random flags that
get modified by other random code.

               Linus