lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix race in process_vm_rw_core
On 01/13, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> Below is a patch which fixes the race in process_vm_core found by
> Oleg (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1235667/).
> It consolidates some code with mm_for_maps since what they do is almost
> identical.
>
> Oleg - I've kept the breakout of ptrace_may_attach and get_task_mm to
> preserve only having to take the task lock once. I see some performance
> difference with a microbenchmark but haven't had a chance to test with
> some HPC benchmarks yet so for the moment I'd like to leave it in.

I still think we should avoid the copy-and-paste code, we can do this
without the extra unlock+lock if it hurts.

However,

> At
> this stage I think its more important to get the race fixed and I'm at
> Linux.conf.au all next week. I'll send a patch out for the
> rw_copy_check_uvector cleanup after I get back from LCA.

OK, lets fix the bug first.

> struct mm_struct *mm_for_maps(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> - struct mm_struct *mm;
> - int err;
> -
> - err = mutex_lock_killable(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> - if (err)
> - return ERR_PTR(err);
> -
> - mm = get_task_mm(task);
> - if (mm && mm != current->mm &&
> - !ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ)) {
> - mmput(mm);
> - mm = ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
> - }
> - mutex_unlock(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> -
> - return mm;
> + return get_check_task_mm(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ);
> }
> ...
> +struct mm_struct *get_check_task_mm(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)
> +{
> + struct mm_struct *mm;
> + int err;
> +
> + err = mutex_lock_killable(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> + if (err)
> + return ERR_PTR(err);
> +
> + task_lock(task);
> + if (__ptrace_may_access(task, mode)) {
> + mm = ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
> + goto out;
> + }

Probably you should check "mm != current->mm" before __ptrace_may_access(),
otherwise this changes the rules for, say, /proc/pid/maps.

> @@ -298,23 +298,15 @@ static ssize_t process_vm_rw_core(pid_t pid, const struct iovec *lvec,
> goto free_proc_pages;
> }
>
> - task_lock(task);
> - if (__ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH)) {
> - task_unlock(task);
> - rc = -EPERM;
> - goto put_task_struct;
> - }
> - mm = task->mm;
> -
> - if (!mm || (task->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) {
> - task_unlock(task);
> - rc = -EINVAL;
> + mm = get_check_task_mm(task, PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH);
> + if (!mm || IS_ERR(mm)) {
> + if (!mm)
> + rc = -EINVAL;
> + else
> + rc = -EPERM;

Cosmetic nit. I won't insist, but why -EPERM is better than -EACCES
returned by get_check_task_mm()? IOW, why not rc = PTR_ERR() ?

Note that get_check_task_mm() can return -EINTR, in this case -EPERM
looks confusing even if this doesn't really materr (the killed task
can't return to usermode).

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-13 17:13    [W:0.066 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site