lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: yama_ptrace_access_check(): possible recursive locking detected
From
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/15, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like get_task_comm shouldn't have locking at all then? It
>> should just do a length-limited copy
>
> Without task_lock() get_task_comm() can copy incomplete new name.
>
> Honestly, I do not know any user which "strictly" needs the correct
> name. may be proc.

Right, which is my point -- if the race to read against
set_task_comm() isn't useful to anything, why lock in get_task_comm at
all?

>
>> and make sure there is a trailing
>> 0-byte?
>
> get_task_comm()->strncpy() should always see (and copy) 0-byte.
> comm[TASK_COMM_LEN - 1] == '\0' and this byte is never changed.
>
> set_task_comm()->strlcpy() can write to this byte, but it can
> only write 0 again.

Right, and set_task_comm even does a memset() of 0 over the whole area
before the strlcpy too.

Regardless, it sounds like just using ->comm directly is fine; I'll
send a patch.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-15 21:03    [W:0.693 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site