Re: [PATCH -next v2 0/4] mm: replace mmap_sem for mm->exe_file serialization

[Cyrill Gorcunov]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:08:40PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> >> Ok I think I am finally seeing where you are going. And I like it *a
> >> lot* because it allows us to basically replace mmap_sem with rcu
> >> (MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED being the only user that requires a lock!!), but
> >> am afraid it might not be possible. I mean currently we have no rule wrt
> >> to users that don't deal with prctl.
> >>
> >> Forbidding multiple exe_file changes to be generic would certainly
> >> change address space semantics, probably for the better (tighter around
> >> security), but changed nonetheless so users would have a right to
> >> complain, no? So if we can get away with removing MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED
> >> I'm all for it. Andrew?
> 
> I can't figure out why MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED is used to stop a second
> change. But it does seem useful to mark a process as "hey, we know for
> sure this the exe_file changed on this process" from an accounting
> perspective.

Sure, except it start being more stopper for further development so
ripping it off would help ;)

> 
> And I'd agree about the malware: it would never use this interface, so
> there's no security benefit I can see. Maybe I haven't had enough
> coffee, though. :)

Yes, same here, would never use it either.
--
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/