linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] signal: Always call do_notify_parent

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: <874k2ea9q4.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:20:51 -0500
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...nel.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, tj@...nel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        inux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] signal: Always call do_notify_parent_cldstop with
 siglock held

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:

> On 04/26, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> @@ -2164,7 +2166,9 @@ static void do_notify_parent_cldstop(struct task_struct *tsk,
>>   	}
>>
>>  	sighand = parent->sighand;
>> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, flags);
>> +	lock = tsk->sighand != sighand;
>> +	if (lock)
>> +		spin_lock_nested(&sighand->siglock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>
> But why is it safe?
>
> Suppose we have two tasks, they both trace each other, both call
> ptrace_stop() at the same time. Of course this is ugly, they both
> will block.
>
> But with this patch in this case we have the trivial ABBA deadlock,
> no?

I was thinking in terms of the process tree (which is fine).

The ptrace parental relationship definitely has the potential to be a
graph with cycles.  Which as you point out is not fine.


The result is very nice and I don't want to give it up.  I suspect
something ptrace cycles are always a problem and can simply be
forbidden.  That is going to take some analsysis and some additional
code in ptrace_attach.

I will go look at that.

Eric