Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] pidfd: Replace open-coded partial fd_install_received()

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 03:07:13PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:03:24PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > The sock counting (sock_update_netprioidx() and sock_update_classid()) was
> > missing from pidfd's implementation of received fd installation. Replace
> > the open-coded version with a call to the new fd_install_received()
> > helper.
> > 
> > Fixes: 8649c322f75c ("pid: Implement pidfd_getfd syscall")
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/pid.c | 11 +----------
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/pid.c b/kernel/pid.c
> > index f1496b757162..24924ec5df0e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/pid.c
> > +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> > @@ -635,18 +635,9 @@ static int pidfd_getfd(struct pid *pid, int fd)
> >  	if (IS_ERR(file))
> >  		return PTR_ERR(file);
> >  
> > -	ret = security_file_receive(file);
> > -	if (ret) {
> > -		fput(file);
> > -		return ret;
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	ret = get_unused_fd_flags(O_CLOEXEC);
> > +	ret = fd_install_received(file, O_CLOEXEC);
> >  	if (ret < 0)
> >  		fput(file);
> > -	else
> > -		fd_install(ret, file);
> 
> So someone just sent a fix for pidfd_getfd() that was based on the
> changes done here.

Hi! Ah yes, that didn't get CCed to me. I'll go reply.

> I've been on vacation so didn't have a change to review this series and
> I see it's already in linux-next. This introduces a memory leak and
> actually proves a point I tried to stress when adding this helper:
> fd_install_received() in contrast to fd_install() does _not_ consume a
> reference because it takes one before it calls into fd_install(). That
> means, you need an unconditional fput() here both in the failure and
> error path.

Yup, this was a mistake in my refactoring of the pidfs changes.

> I strongly suggest though that we simply align the behavior between
> fd_install() and fd_install_received() and have the latter simply
> consume a reference when it succeeds! Imho, this bug proves that I was
> right to insist on this before. ;)

I still don't agree: it radically complicates the SCM_RIGHTS and seccomp
cases. The primary difference is that fd_install() cannot fail, and it
was optimized for this situation. The other file-related helpers that
can fail do not consume the reference, so this is in keeping with those
as well.

-- 
Kees Cook