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

[David Howells]

Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Good catch, Chris and Oleg!  This one is yet another dhowells blue plate
> special, deeply subtle change buried inside the ginormous commit d84f4f9. ;-}

Well...  Unfortunately it was an all-or-nothing patch, leastways if you wanted
the kernel to compile afterwards.

> He even mentioned this one in the log:
> 
>  (a) selinux_setprocattr() no longer does its check for whether the
> 	 current ptracer can access processes with the new SID inside the lock
> 	 that covers getting the ptracer's SID.  Whilst this lock ensures that
> 	 the check is done with the ptracer pinned, the result is only valid
> 	 until the lock is released, so there's no point doing it inside the
> 	 lock.

I knew there was a reason I carefully documented the major changes.

> Before d84f4f9, the extraction, avc check, and SID switch were all under
> task_lock().  What David's comment ignores is that "the lock that covers
> getting the ptracer's SID" (i.e. task_lock) is also the lock that excludes
> ptrace attempts, with their security checks against the (old or new) SID.
> i.e.:

I mainly focused on making sure ptrace and execve still worked in relation to
each other.  Unfortunately, I didn't see that selinux_setprocattr() might
interact with ptrace() in the same manner.

> Indeed, cred_exec_mutex is the equivalent lock for that post-d84f4f9.

Yeah.  Perhaps it should be renamed cred_ptrace_mutex.

David
--
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/