Re: [PATCH v8 9/9] seccomp: implement SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/25, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > However, do_execve() takes cred_guard_mutex at the start in prepare_bprm_creds()
> > and drops it in install_exec_creds(), so it should solve the problem?
>
> I can't tell yet. I'm still trying to understand the order of
> operations here. It looks like de_thread() takes the sighand lock.
> do_execve_common does:
>
> prepare_bprm_creds (takes cred_guard_mutex)
> check_unsafe_exec (checks nnp to set LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS)
> prepare_binprm (handles suid escalation, checks nnp separately)
>     security_bprm_set_creds (checks LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS)
> exec_binprm
>     load_elf_binary
>         flush_old_exec
>             de_thread (takes and releases sighand->lock)
>         install_exec_creds (releases cred_guard_mutex)

Yes, and note that when cred_guard_mutex is dropped all other threads
are already killed,

> I don't see a way to use cred_guard_mutex during tsync (which holds
> sighand->lock) without dead-locking. What were you considering here?

Just take/drop current->signal->cred_guard_mutex along with ->siglock
in seccomp_set_mode_filter() ? Unconditionally on depending on
SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC.

Oleg.

--
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/