lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] sys, seccomp: add PR_SECCOMP_EXT and SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_TSYNC
From
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 01/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> >
>> > > + get_seccomp_filter(caller);
>> > > + /*
>> > > + * Drop the task reference to the shared ancestor since
>> > > + * current's path will hold a reference. (This also
>> > > + * allows a put before the assignment.)
>> > > + */
>> > > + put_seccomp_filter(thread);
>> > > + thread->seccomp.filter = caller->seccomp.filter;
>> >
>> > As I said, I do not understand this patch yet, but this looks suspicious.
>> >
>> > Why we can't race with this thread doing clone(CLONE_THREAD) ? We do
>> > not the the new thread yet, but its ->seccomp can be already copied
>> > by copy_process(), no?

Ah - I thought the tasklist_lock would catch that, but of course that
happens before
the tasklist_lock is needed.

>>
>> And it seems that this can obviously race with seccomp_attach_filter()
>> called by this "thread".

And... I was hoping the task_lock would cover any attach cases, but
missing the copy_process() is a problem.
>
> Heh. I just noticed that this patch is not first in series, and I wasn't
> cc'ed. I found this one on marc.info,

Sorry! I shouldn't have relied on cc-cmd, I usually mess it up.

>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=138964557211277
>
> this explains task_lock(). But this can't fix the race with copy_process,
> and the patch itself doesn't look right... if nothing else, we can't do
> copy_from_user() under task_lock().

Thanks -- I'll take a more critical look!


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-14 22:41    [W:0.037 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site