Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:08:52 +0900 | From | "Kawai, Hidehiro" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] binfmt_elf: core dump masking support |
| |
Hello Andrew,
Thank you for your reply and advice. I'll send the revised patchset after I fix what you pointed out.
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Regarding the implementation: if we add > > unsigned char coredump_omit_anon_memory:1; > > into the mm_struct right next to `dumpable' then we avoid increasing the > size of the mm_struct, and the code gets neater. > > Modification of this field is racy, and we don't have a suitable lock in > mm_struct to fix that. I don't think we care about that a lot, but it'd be > best to find some way of fixing it.
OK, I'll put a bit field right next to `dumpable' member and add a global lock to protect them from the race. I have the perception that only writing to these bit-fields needs to acquire a lock. Simultaneous writes to both bit-fields can cause either one to be overwritten with its old value. But simultaneous read and write from/to separate bit-fields is safe because write to one bit-field doesn't affect read from the other.
The dumpable can be modified at following timing:
- before starting core dumping in do_coredump() - when initialize mm_struct in flush_old_exec() - when *uid or *gid is changed by the coresponding system call - when the dumpable is modified directly by prctl(2)
I expect that these don't occur so much frequently, so I consider that the performance impact by using a global lock is small.
> Really we should convert binfmt_aout.c and any other coredumpers too.
Currently, binfmt_aout.c and binfmt_elf_fdpic.c have their own core dump routines as well as binfmt_elf.c. However, as far as I know, binfmt_aout.c never dumps shared memory. So I will convert only binfmt_elf_fdpic.c to support this feature.
> Does this feature have any security implications? For example, there might > be system administration programs which force a coredump on a "bad" > process, and leave the core somewhere for the administrator to look at. > With this change, we permit hiding of that corefile's anon memory from the > administrator. OK, lame example, but perhaps there are better ones.
I think we can avoid it by providing a sysctl parameter which disables/enables this feature.
Another idea is that we provide a sysctl parameter to prohibit non-root user from writing to /proc/<pid>/coremask. If the administrator want to force a full coredump on a bad process, he/she only has to clear the coremask after setting the sysctl parameter.
For now, I will implement the first idea, because its design and implementation are simple and it is easy to use.
Best regards,
-- Hidehiro Kawai Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |