lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 06/11] rlimits: do security check under task_lock
From
Date
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 19:44 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 06/23/2010 06:12 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/23, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06/07/2010 08:08 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>> On 06/06, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >>>> @@ -1339,13 +1364,19 @@ int do_prlimit(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int resource,
> >>>>
> >>>> rlim = tsk->signal->rlim + resource;
> >>>> task_lock(tsk->group_leader);
> >>>> +again:
> >>>> + retval = 0;
> >>>> if (new_rlim) {
> >>>> if ((new_rlim->rlim_max > rlim->rlim_max) &&
> >>>> !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> >>
> >> BTW this capable() has the exactly same problem with being called with
> >> task_lock held. Is it OK to move it completely out of critical section?
> >> I'm asking because it sets a current->flags SU bit used for accounting.
> >> If I move it out of the section, it will set the bit always.
> >
> > Well, with all these delays I do not know what "exactly same problem"
> > means ;) Please explain?
>
> As I wrote: that the capable() is called with task_lock held. With
> security enabled, capable() goes through all the avc_has_perm_noaudit,
> avc_audit and similar (in selinux), the same as security_task_setrlimit
> which we were writing about -- Andrew complaining about doing very long
> security checks while holding spinlocks.
>
> I mean we should do either none of capable and selinux_task_setrlimit
> under task_lock or both :).

IMO, just do them both under task_lock. All of the core SELinux
permission checking code should be safe under task lock and the audit
path is the exceptional case (only upon denial).

> >>> Finally. selinux_task_setrlimit(p) uses __task_cred(p) for the check.
> >>> This looks a bit strange, different threads can have different creds
> >>> but obviously rlimits are per-process.
> >>
> >> Sorry I can't see it. Could you point out in which function this is done?
> >
> > selinux_task_setrlimit()->current_has_perm()->current_sid()->current_cred()
>
> I still see no way how this is wrong. We want to check whether current
> thread has capabilities to change (someone else's) rlimits. Maybe I'm
> missing something?
>
> thanks,

--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-23 20:41    [W:0.051 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site