linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/sys: Optimize do_prlimit lock scope to reduce contention

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: <20241128071351.GA10998@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:13:52 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Zhen Ni <zhen.ni@...ystack.cn>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	catalin.marinas@....com, brauner@...nel.org, zev@...ilderbeest.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/sys: Optimize do_prlimit lock scope to reduce
 contention

On 11/27, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:21:56 +0800 Zhen Ni <zhen.ni@...ystack.cn> wrote:
>
> > The security_task_setrlimit function is a Linux Security Module (LSM)
> > hook that evaluates resource limit changes based on security policies.
> > It does not alter the rlim data structure, as confirmed by existing
> > LSM implementations (e.g., SELinux and AppArmor). Thus, this function
> > does not require locking, ensuring correctness while improving
> > concurrency.
>
> Seems sane.
>
> Does any code call do_prlimit() frequently enough for this to matter?

I have the same question...

> > -	task_lock(tsk->group_leader);
> >  	if (new_rlim) {
> >  		/*
> >  		 * Keep the capable check against init_user_ns until cgroups can
> >  		 * contain all limits.
> >  		 */
> >  		if (new_rlim->rlim_max > rlim->rlim_max &&
> > -				!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> > -			retval = -EPERM;
> > -		if (!retval)
> > -			retval = security_task_setrlimit(tsk, resource, new_rlim);
> > +		    !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> > +			return -EPERM;
> > +		retval = security_task_setrlimit(tsk, resource, new_rlim);
> > +		if (retval)
> > +			return retval;
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	task_lock(tsk->group_leader);

The problem is that task_lock(tsk->group_leader) doesn't look right with or
without this patch. I'll try to make a fix on weekend.

If the caller is sys_prlimit64() and tsk != current, then ->group_leader is
not stable, do_prlimit() can race with mt exec and take the wrong lock.

Oleg.