[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuid sometimes doesn't)
    On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 01:53:43AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

    > Can't find the patch which introduced check_unsafe_exec(), so
    > I am asking here.
    > How it is supposed to work?
    > Let's suppose we have two threads T1 and T2. T1 exits, and calls
    > exit_fs().
    > exit_fs:
    > tsk->fs = NULL;
    > // WINDOW
    > put_fs_struct(fs);
    > Now, if T2 does exec() and check_unsafe_exec() happens in the WINDOW
    > above, we set LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE.
    > Or we can race with sub-thread doing clone(CLONE_FS|CLONE_THREAD),
    > the new thread is not visible in ->thread_group, buy copy_fs()
    > can already increment fs->count.

    Frankly, I don't think we really care. Note that having several sub-threads
    and doing execve() in one of them will kill the rest, so you really want
    to do some kind of synchronization to get something similar to reasonable
    behaviour anyway.

    > Another question. Why do we check sighand->count? We always unshare
    > ->sighand on exec, see de_thread().

    Correct. That check can and should go.

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-29 06:15    [W:0.021 / U:7.976 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site