Re: [PATCH 3/3] ptrace: do not use task_lock() for attach

[James Morris]

On Wed, 6 May 2009, Chris Wright wrote:

> * Oleg Nesterov (oleg@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > But this can happen without this change too?
> > 
> > - cpu2 takes task_lock(), tracehook_tracer_task() returns NULL because
> >   we are not traced yet.
> > 
> > - cpu1 does ptrace_attach() and succeds, because cpu2 didn't update sid
> >   yet
> > 
> > - cpu2 continues, it doesn't check avc_has_perm() (tracer == 0) and
> >   updates sid.
> > 
> > No?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Shouldn't selinux_setprocattr() take ->cred_exec_mutex, like we do in
> > selinux_bprm_set_creds() path?
> 
> I was looking at the same, seems like it to me.  James?

As far as I can tell, yes.

(Added David Howells and security folk to the cc -- please make sure at 
least that the LSM list is cc'd when changing code which affects LSM 
modules).


- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
--
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/