[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] exec: Add a exec_update_mutex to replace cred_guard_mutex (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

> (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>> Bernd Edlinger <> writes:
>>> On 3/6/20 6:17 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>> Bernd Edlinger <> writes:
>>>>> On 3/5/20 10:16 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>>> The cred_guard_mutex is problematic. The cred_guard_mutex is held
>>>>>> over the userspace accesses as the arguments from userspace are read.
>>>>>> The cred_guard_mutex is held of PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT as the the other
>>>>>> threads are killed. The cred_guard_mutex is held over
>>>>>> "put_user(0, tsk->clear_child_tid)" in exit_mm().
>>> I am all for this patch, and the direction it is heading, Eric.
>>> I just wanted to add a note that I think it is
>>> possible that exec_mm_release can also invoke put_user(0, tsk->clear_child_tid),
>>> under the new exec_update_mutex, since vm_access increments the
>>> mm->mm_users, under the cred_update_mutex, but releases the mutex,
>>> and the caller can hold the reference for a while and then exec_mmap is not
>>> releasing the last reference.
>> Good catch. I really appreciate your close look at the details.
>> I am wondering if process_vm_readv and process_vm_writev could be
>> safely changed to use mmgrab and mmdrop, instead of mmget and mmput.
>> That would resolve the potential issue you have pointed out. I just
>> haven't figured out if it is safe. The mm code has been seriously
>> refactored since I knew how it all worked.
> Nope, mmget can not be replaced by mmgrab.
> It might be possible to do something creative like store a cred in place
> of the userns on the mm and use that for mm_access permission checks.
> Still we are talking a pretty narrow window, and a case that no one has
> figured out how to trigger yet. So I will leave that corner case as
> something for future improvements.

My brain is restless and keep looking at it.

The worst case is processes created with CLONE_VM|CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID
but not CLONE_THREAD. For those that put_user will occur ever time
in exec_mmap.

The only solution that I can see is to move taking the new mutex after
exec_mm_release. Which may be feasible given how close exec_mmap
follows de_thread.

I am going to sleep on that and perhaps I will be able to see how to
move taking the mutex lower.

It would be very nice not to have a known issue going into this set of


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-07 02:05    [W:0.202 / U:1.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site