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:   Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:46:45 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Chinwen Chang <chinwen.chang@...iatek.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <Kevin.Brodsky@....com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Shawn Anastasio <shawn@...stas.io>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        Nicolas Viennot <Nicolas.Viennot@...sigma.com>,
        Thomas Cedeno <thomascedeno@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>,
        Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] kernel/fork: factor out replacing the current MM
 exe_file

On 19.08.21 22:51, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I like this series.
> 
> However, logically, I think this part in replace_mm_exe_file() no
> longer makes sense:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 12:50 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> +       /* Forbid mm->exe_file change if old file still mapped. */
>> +       old_exe_file = get_mm_exe_file(mm);
>> +       if (old_exe_file) {
>> +               mmap_read_lock(mm);
>> +               for (vma = mm->mmap; vma && !ret; vma = vma->vm_next) {
>> +                       if (!vma->vm_file)
>> +                               continue;
>> +                       if (path_equal(&vma->vm_file->f_path,
>> +                                      &old_exe_file->f_path))
>> +                               ret = -EBUSY;
>> +               }
>> +               mmap_read_unlock(mm);
>> +               fput(old_exe_file);
>> +               if (ret)
>> +                       return ret;
>> +       }
> 
> and should just be removed.
> 
> NOTE! I think it makes sense within the context of this patch (where
> you just move code around), but that it should then be removed in the
> next patch that does that "always deny write access to current MM
> exe_file" thing.
> 
> I just quoted it in the context of this patch, since the next patch
> doesn't actually show this code any more.
> 
> In the *old* model - where the ETXTBUSY was about the mmap() of the
> file - the above tests make sense.
> 
> But in the new model, walking the mappings just doesn't seem to be a
> sensible operation any more. The mappings simply aren't what ETXTBUSY
> is about in the new world order, and so doing that mapping walk seems
> nonsensical.
> 
> Hmm?

I think this is somewhat another kind of "stop user space trying
to do stupid things" thingy, not necessarily glued to ETXTBUSY:
don't allow replacing exe_file if that very file is still mapped
and consequently eventually still in use by the application.

I don't think it necessarily has many things to do with ETXTBUSY:
we only check if there is a VMA mapping that file, not that it's
a VM_DENYWRITE mapping.

That code originates from

commit 4229fb1dc6843c49a14bb098719f8a696cdc44f8
Author: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
Date:   Wed Jul 11 14:02:11 2012 -0700

     c/r: prctl: less paranoid prctl_set_mm_exe_file()

     "no other files mapped" requirement from my previous patch (c/r: prctl:
     update prctl_set_mm_exe_file() after mm->num_exe_file_vmas removal) is too
     paranoid, it forbids operation even if there mapped one shared-anon vma.
     
     Let's check that current mm->exe_file already unmapped, in this case
     exe_file symlink already outdated and its changing is reasonable.


The statement "exe_file symlink already outdated and its
changing is reasonable" somewhat makes sense.


Long story short, I think this check somehow makes a bit of sense, but
we wouldn't lose too much if we drop it -- just another sanity check.

Your call :)

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ