Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: Add a exec_update_mutex to replace cred_guard_mutex
From: Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
Date: 2020-03-06 22:32:12
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml, stable
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
Bernd Edlinger [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On 3/6/20 6:17 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:quoted
Bernd Edlinger [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On 3/5/20 10:16 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:quoted
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. Eric