Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] exec: Add a exec_update_mutex to replace cred_guard_mutex
From: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date: 2020-03-10 21:22:01
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml, stable
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2020-03-17 · Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] exec: Add a exec_update_mutex to replace cred_guard_mutex · Kirill Tkhai <hidden>
- 2020-03-15 · Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] exec: Add a exec_update_mutex to replace cred_guard_mutex · Bernd Edlinger <hidden>
- 2020-03-15 · Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] exec: Add a exec_update_mutex to replace cred_guard_mutex · Bernd Edlinger <hidden>
- 2020-03-13 · Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] exec: Add a exec_update_mutex to replace cred_guard_mutex · Kirill Tkhai <hidden>
- 2020-03-13 · Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] exec: Add a exec_update_mutex to replace cred_guard_mutex · Bernd Edlinger <hidden>
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 10:41 PM Eric W. Biederman [off-list ref] 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(). Any of those can result in deadlock, as the cred_guard_mutex is held over a possible indefinite userspace waits for userspace. Add exec_update_mutex that is only held over exec updating process with the new contents of exec, so that code that needs not to be confused by exec changing the mm and the cred in ways that can not happen during ordinary execution of a process. The plan is to switch the users of cred_guard_mutex to exec_udpate_mutex one by one. This lets us move forward while still being careful and not introducing any regressions.
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1034,6 +1035,11 @@ static int exec_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm) return -EINTR; } } + + ret = mutex_lock_killable(&tsk->signal->exec_update_mutex); + if (ret) + return ret;
We're already holding the old mmap_sem, and now nest the exec_update_mutex inside it; but then while still holding the exec_update_mutex, we do mmput(), which can e.g. end up in ksm_exit(), which can do down_write(&mm->mmap_sem) from __ksm_exit(). So I think at least lockdep will be unhappy, and I'm not sure whether it's an actual problem or not.