linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 10/12] ptrace: Don't change _

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: <87ee11wh6b.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 10:17:32 -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>,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/12] ptrace: Don't change __state

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

> On 05/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>  static void ptrace_unfreeze_traced(struct task_struct *task)
>>  {
>> -	if (READ_ONCE(task->__state) != __TASK_TRACED)
>> -		return;
>> -
>> -	WARN_ON(!task->ptrace || task->parent != current);
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>>  
>>  	/*
>> -	 * PTRACE_LISTEN can allow ptrace_trap_notify to wake us up remotely.
>> -	 * Recheck state under the lock to close this race.
>> +	 * The child may be awake and may have cleared
>> +	 * JOBCTL_PTRACE_FROZEN (see ptrace_resume).  The child will
>> +	 * not set JOBCTL_PTRACE_FROZEN or enter __TASK_TRACED anew.
>>  	 */
>> -	spin_lock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
>> -	if (READ_ONCE(task->__state) == __TASK_TRACED) {
>> +	if (lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
>
> But I still think that a lockless
>
> 	if (!(task->jobctl & JOBCTL_PTRACE_FROZEN))
> 		return;
>
> check at the start of ptrace_unfreeze_traced() makes sense to avoid
> lock_task_sighand() if possible.
>
> And ptrace_resume() can probably clear JOBCTL_PTRACE_FROZEN along with
> JOBCTL_TRACED to make this optimization work better. The same for
> ptrace_signal_wake_up().

What do you have that suggests that taking siglock there is a problem?

What you propose will definitely work as an incremental change, and
in an incremental change we can explain why doing the stupid simple
thing is not good enough.

I am not really opposed on any grounds except that simplicity is good,
and hard to get wrong.

Eric