Re: [PATCH] fs/exec.c: Avoid a race in formats

[Yun Levi]

> Mostly of what has been happening with binary formats lately is code
> removal.
>
> So I humbly suggest the best defense against misuse by modules is to
> simply remove "EXPORT_SYMBOL(__register_binfmt)".

It could be a solution. but that means the kernel doesn't allow
dynamic binfmt using modules too.
I think the best safe way to remove registered binfmt is ...

unregister binfmt list first ---- (1)
synchronize_rcu_task();
// tasklist stack-check...
unload module.

But for this, there shouldn't happen in the above situation of (1).
If unregister_binfmt has this problem.. I think there is no way to
unload safely for dynamic registered binfmt via module.



On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 9:42 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 8:59 AM Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 8:24 AM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 08:17:52AM +0900, Levi Yun wrote:
> >> > > Suppose a module registers its own binfmt (custom) and formats is like:
> >> > >
> >> > > +---------+    +----------+    +---------+
> >> > > | custom  | -> |  format1 | -> | format2 |
> >> > > +---------+    +----------+    +---------+
> >> > >
> >> > > and try to call unregister_binfmt with custom NOT in __exit stage.
> >> >
> >> > Explain, please.  Why would anyone do that?  And how would such
> >> > module decide when it's safe to e.g. dismantle data structures
> >> > used by methods of that binfmt, etc.?
> >> > Could you give more detailed example?
> >>
> >> I think if someone wants to control their own binfmt via "ioctl" not
> >> on time on LOAD.
> >> For example, someone wants to control exec (notification,
> >> allow/disallow and etc..)
> >> and want to enable and disable own's control exec via binfmt reg / unreg
> >> In that situation, While the module is loaded, binfmt is still live
> >> and can be reused by
> >> reg/unreg to enable/disable his exec' control.
> >>
> >> module can decide it's safe to unload by tracing the stack and
> >> confirming whether some tasks in the custom binfmt's function after it
> >> unregisters its own binfmt.
> >>
> >> > Because it looks like papering over an inherently unsafe use of binfmt interfaces..
> >>
> >> I think the above example it's quite a trick and stupid.  it's quite
> >> unsafe to use as you mention.
> >> But, misuse allows that situation to happen without any warning.
> >> As a robustness, I just try to avoid above situation But,
> >> I think it's better to restrict unregister binfmt unregister only when
> >> there is no module usage.
> >
> > And not only stupid exmaple,
> > if someone loadable custom binfmt register in __init and __exit via
> > register and unregister_binfmt,
> > I think that situation could happen.
>
> Mostly of what has been happening with binary formats lately is code
> removal.
>
> So I humbly suggest the best defense against misuse by modules is to
> simply remove "EXPORT_SYMBOL(__register_binfmt)".
>
> Eric