Re: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuidsometimes doesn't)

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 01:53:43AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Can't find the patch which introduced check_unsafe_exec(), so
> I am asking here.
> 
> How it is supposed to work?
> 
> Let's suppose we have two threads T1 and T2. T1 exits, and calls
> exit_fs().
> 
> 	exit_fs:
> 
> 		tsk->fs = NULL;
> 		// WINDOW
> 		put_fs_struct(fs);
> 
> Now, if T2 does exec() and check_unsafe_exec() happens in the WINDOW
> above, we set LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE.
> 
> Or we can race with sub-thread doing clone(CLONE_FS|CLONE_THREAD),
> the new thread is not visible in ->thread_group, buy copy_fs()
> can already increment fs->count.
 
Frankly, I don't think we really care.  Note that having several sub-threads
and doing execve() in one of them will kill the rest, so you really want
to do some kind of synchronization to get something similar to reasonable
behaviour anyway.

> Another question. Why do we check sighand->count? We always unshare
> ->sighand on exec, see de_thread().

Correct.  That check can and should go.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/