Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] exec: Factor unshare_sighand out of de_thread and call it separately

On 3/10/20 9:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:

On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 04:36:17PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

This makes the code clearer and makes it easier to implement a mutex
that is not taken over any locations that may block indefinitely waiting
for userspace.

Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <redacted>
---
 fs/exec.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index c3f34791f2f0..ff74b9a74d34 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c

@@ -1194,6 +1194,23 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
 	flush_itimer_signals();
 #endif

Semi-related (existing behavior): in de_thread(), what keeps the thread
group from changing? i.e.:

        if (thread_group_empty(tsk))
                goto no_thread_group;

        /*
         * Kill all other threads in the thread group.
         */
        spin_lock_irq(lock);
	... kill other threads under lock ...

Why is the thread_group_emtpy() test not under lock?

A new thread cannot created when only one thread is executing,
right?

quoted

 
+	BUG_ON(!thread_group_leader(tsk));
+	return 0;
+
+killed:
+	/* protects against exit_notify() and __exit_signal() */

I wonder if include/linux/sched/task.h's definition of tasklist_lock
should explicitly gain note about group_exit_task and notify_count,
or, alternatively, signal.h's section on these fields should gain a
comment? tasklist_lock is unmentioned in signal.h... :(

quoted

+	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+	sig->group_exit_task = NULL;
+	sig->notify_count = 0;
+	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+	return -EAGAIN;
+}
+
+
+static int unshare_sighand(struct task_struct *me)
+{
+	struct sighand_struct *oldsighand = me->sighand;
+
 	if (refcount_read(&oldsighand->count) != 1) {
 		struct sighand_struct *newsighand;
 		/*

@@ -1210,23 +1227,13 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
 
 		write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
 		spin_lock(&oldsighand->siglock);
-		rcu_assign_pointer(tsk->sighand, newsighand);
+		rcu_assign_pointer(me->sighand, newsighand);
 		spin_unlock(&oldsighand->siglock);
 		write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
 
 		__cleanup_sighand(oldsighand);
 	}
-
-	BUG_ON(!thread_group_leader(tsk));
 	return 0;
-
-killed:
-	/* protects against exit_notify() and __exit_signal() */
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
-	sig->group_exit_task = NULL;
-	sig->notify_count = 0;
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
-	return -EAGAIN;
 }
 
 char *__get_task_comm(char *buf, size_t buf_size, struct task_struct *tsk)

@@ -1264,13 +1271,19 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm)
 	int retval;
 
 	/*
-	 * Make sure we have a private signal table and that
-	 * we are unassociated from the previous thread group.
+	 * Make this the only thread in the thread group.
 	 */
 	retval = de_thread(me);
 	if (retval)
 		goto out;
 
+	/*
+	 * Make the signal table private.
+	 */
+	retval = unshare_sighand(me);
+	if (retval)
+		goto out;
+
 	/*
 	 * Must be called _before_ exec_mmap() as bprm->mm is
 	 * not visibile until then. This also enables the update

-- 
2.25.0

Otherwise, yes, sensible separation.

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <redacted>