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

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 06:55:13AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 06:52:06AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> > Let's suppose that check_unsafe_exec() does not set LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE and
> > drops ->siglock. After that, another sub-thread does clone(CLONE_FS) without
> > CLONE_THREAD.
> 
> Lovely.  And yes, AFAICS that's a hole.
> 
> > Unless we killed other threads, I can't see how we can check ->fs is not
> > shared with another process, we can fool ->bprm_set_creds() anyway.
> 
> We can't do that, until we are past the point of no return.  Charming...
> In principle, we can mark these threads as "-EAGAIN on such clone()" and
> clean that on exec failure.

... or just do that to fs_struct.  After finding that there's no outside
users.  Commenst?
--
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/