lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next] proc: fix task_struct infoleak
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:

> proc_pid_permission() doesn't put task_struct on every /proc/$pid/
> access. A demo from Hugh Dickins:
>
> while :; do ps; grep KernelStack /proc/meminfo; sleep 1; done
>
> Reported-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>

Thank you, yes, that fixes it for me:
Tested-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
but hopefully akpm will just fold this into the original patch.

Hmm, tiny niggle, but I notice that has_pid_permissions() is
declared, reasonably, as bool; so wouldn't it be better for
has_perms to be declared as bool instead of int? Hardly
worth bothering about, but if you've a mind to respin with
a corrected Subject as Al rightly suggests.

> ---
> This is a patch against a hidepid patchset from -mm.
>
> fs/proc/base.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 8caf5cb..0e5c577 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -646,9 +646,14 @@ static bool has_pid_permissions(struct pid_namespace *pid,
> static int proc_pid_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask)
> {
> struct pid_namespace *pid = inode->i_sb->s_fs_info;
> - struct task_struct *task = get_proc_task(inode);
> + struct task_struct *task;
> + int has_perms;
> +
> + task = get_proc_task(inode);
> + has_perms = has_pid_permissions(pid, task, 1);
> + put_task_struct(task);
>
> - if (!has_pid_permissions(pid, task, 1)) {
> + if (!has_perms) {
> if (pid->hide_pid == 2) {
> /*
> * Let's make getdents(), stat(), and open()
> --
> 1.7.0.4


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-12 00:23    [W:0.058 / U:0.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site