Re: [PATCH] Fix race in process_vm_rw_core

From: Christopher Yeoh
Date: Fri Jan 13 2012 - 18:27:03 EST


On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:04:42 +0100
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/13, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> > ...
> > +struct mm_struct *get_check_task_mm(struct task_struct *task,
> > unsigned int mode) +{
> > + struct mm_struct *mm;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + err =
> > mutex_lock_killable(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> > + if (err)
> > + return ERR_PTR(err);
> > +
> > + task_lock(task);
> > + if (__ptrace_may_access(task, mode)) {
> > + mm = ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> Probably you should check "mm != current->mm" before
> __ptrace_may_access(), otherwise this changes the rules for,
> say, /proc/pid/maps.

__ptrace_may_access has a check for task == current already -
Is that sufficient?

/* Don't let security modules deny introspection */
if (task == current)
return 0;

> > @@ -298,23 +298,15 @@ static ssize_t process_vm_rw_core(pid_t pid,
> > const struct iovec *lvec, goto free_proc_pages;
> > }
> >
> > - task_lock(task);
> > - if (__ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH)) {
> > - task_unlock(task);
> > - rc = -EPERM;
> > - goto put_task_struct;
> > - }
> > - mm = task->mm;
> > -
> > - if (!mm || (task->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) {
> > - task_unlock(task);
> > - rc = -EINVAL;
> > + mm = get_check_task_mm(task, PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH);
> > + if (!mm || IS_ERR(mm)) {
> > + if (!mm)
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> > + else
> > + rc = -EPERM;
>
> Cosmetic nit. I won't insist, but why -EPERM is better than -EACCES
> returned by get_check_task_mm()? IOW, why not rc = PTR_ERR() ?

Maybe I should just convert EACCES to EPERM for process_vm_rw_core. I
left get_check_task_mm with EACCESS to preserve existing behaviour
for mm_for_maps.

SUSv3 defines EACCES and EPERM as

[EACCES]
Permission denied. An attempt was made to access a file in a way
forbidden by its file access permissions.

[EPERM]
Operation not permitted. An attempt was made to perform an operation
limited to processes with appropriate privileges or to the owner of a
file or other resource.

So EPERM is more appropriate for process_vm_readv/writev

Chris
--
cyeoh@xxxxxxxxxx

--
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/