linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exit: Retain nsproxy for exit_task

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]

Message-ID: <20211209144700.GC63648@blackbody.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 9 Dec 2021 15:47:00 +0100
From:   Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jim Newsome <jnewsome@...project.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
        Security Officers <security@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exit: Retain nsproxy for exit_task_work() work entries

On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 03:08:26PM +0100, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com> wrote:
> send_sig() isn't used that was changed in response to a review. I'm
> confused. 

Sorry for ambiguity, I meant this instance [1].

> Kill and freeze only do time permission checking at open. Why would you
> introduce another write time check?
 
Let's have a cgroup G with tasks t1,...,tn (run by user u) and some
monitoring tasks m1,...,mk belonging to a different user v != u.

Currently u can kill also the tasks of v -- I'm not sure if that's
intentional. My argument would apply if it wasn't -- it'd be suscebtible
to similar abuse, i.e. passing the opened fd to a more privileged
process to kill also v's tasks. (But if the intention is to be able to
kill anyone in the cgroup, then it likely doesn't matter.)


Michal

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c?h=v5.16-rc4#n3762