Re: [PATCH resend v3 2/2] exec: Broadly lock nascent mm until setup_arg_pages()

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 12:57:13AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> @@ -374,17 +366,12 @@ static int bprm_mm_init(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>  	task_unlock(current->group_leader);
>  
>  	err = __bprm_mm_init(bprm);
> -	if (err)
> -		goto err;
> -
> -	return 0;
> -
> -err:
> -	if (mm) {
> -		bprm->mm = NULL;
> -		mmdrop(mm);
> -	}
> +	if (!err)
> +		return 0;
>  
> +	bprm->mm = NULL;
> +	mmap_write_unlock(mm);
> +	mmdrop(mm);
>  	return err;

nit, but prefer 'success-oriented-flow' eg invert the 'if (!err)' and
put the error unwind in the {}

> @@ -1545,6 +1532,18 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm)
>  	me->mm->task_size = TASK_SIZE;
>  	mutex_unlock(&me->signal->exec_update_mutex);
>  	mutex_unlock(&me->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> +
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMU)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * On MMU, setup_arg_pages() wants to access bprm->vma after
> +		 * this point, so we can't drop the mmap lock yet.
> +		 * On !MMU, we have neither setup_arg_pages() nor bprm->vma,
> +		 * so we should drop the lock here.
> +		 */
> +		mmap_write_unlock(bprm->mm);
> +		mmput(bprm->mm);
> +		bprm->mm = NULL;
> +	}

The only thing I dislike about this is how tricky the lock lifetime
is, it all looks correct, but expecting the setup_arg_pages() or
setup_new_exec() to unlock (depending!) is quite tricky.

It feels like it would be clearer to have an explicit function to do
this, like 'release_brp_mm()' indicating that current->mm is now the
only way to get the mm and it must be locked.

Or, more practically, the load_binary functionc can now call
vm_mmap().

Anyhow, it took a bit to study all the parts but I think it looks
right as is.

Jason