From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>,
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Stephen Wilson <wilsons@start.ca>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Subject: [kernel-hardening] self_exec_id/parent_exec_id && CLONE_PARENT
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:49:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120311174953.GB2729@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120311172512.GA2729@redhat.com>
(change subject)
On 03/11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Well, I don't think it is right to add this counter into task_struct.
>
> It should be per-process, signal_struct makes more sense. Or may be
> mm_struct.
>
> Btw this is also true for parent_exec_id/self_exec_id, but this is
> another story.
In fact I think it would be nice to kill parent_exec_id/self_exec_id.
Afaics, this only problem is clone(CLONE_PARENT | SIGXXX). I expect
the answer is "no, can break existing applications", but I'll ask
anyway.
Can't we change this? IOW, can't we modify copy_process
- p->exit_signal = (clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) ? -1 : (clone_flags & CSIGNAL);
+ p->exit_signal =
+ (clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) ? -1 :
+ (clobe_flags & CLONE_PARENT) ? current->group_leader->exit_signal :
+ (clone_flags & CSIGNAL);
(or simply use SIGCHLD instead of group_leader->exit_signal).
Then we can kill parent_exec_id/self_exec_id if me modify de_thread()
to set ->exit_signal = SIGCHLD for every child.
I am also asking because the change above looks like the fix to me.
The child must not control its ->exit_signal, it is the parent who
decides which signal the child should use for notification.
And to me, clone(CLONE_PARENT | SIGXXX) looks like a violation of
rule above.
Oleg.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>,
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Stephen Wilson <wilsons@start.ca>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Subject: self_exec_id/parent_exec_id && CLONE_PARENT
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:49:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120311174953.GB2729@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120311172512.GA2729@redhat.com>
(change subject)
On 03/11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Well, I don't think it is right to add this counter into task_struct.
>
> It should be per-process, signal_struct makes more sense. Or may be
> mm_struct.
>
> Btw this is also true for parent_exec_id/self_exec_id, but this is
> another story.
In fact I think it would be nice to kill parent_exec_id/self_exec_id.
Afaics, this only problem is clone(CLONE_PARENT | SIGXXX). I expect
the answer is "no, can break existing applications", but I'll ask
anyway.
Can't we change this? IOW, can't we modify copy_process
- p->exit_signal = (clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) ? -1 : (clone_flags & CSIGNAL);
+ p->exit_signal =
+ (clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) ? -1 :
+ (clobe_flags & CLONE_PARENT) ? current->group_leader->exit_signal :
+ (clone_flags & CSIGNAL);
(or simply use SIGCHLD instead of group_leader->exit_signal).
Then we can kill parent_exec_id/self_exec_id if me modify de_thread()
to set ->exit_signal = SIGCHLD for every child.
I am also asking because the change above looks like the fix to me.
The child must not control its ->exit_signal, it is the parent who
decides which signal the child should use for notification.
And to me, clone(CLONE_PARENT | SIGXXX) looks like a violation of
rule above.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-11 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 102+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-10 23:25 [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 0/9] proc: protect /proc/<pid>/* files across execve Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 1/9] exec: add a global execve counter Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 0:12 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 0:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 0:36 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 0:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 0:58 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 0:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 8:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Solar Designer
2012-03-11 8:24 ` Solar Designer
2012-03-11 9:56 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ingo Molnar
2012-03-11 9:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-11 14:03 ` [kernel-hardening] " Alan Cox
2012-03-11 14:03 ` Alan Cox
2012-03-11 17:15 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 17:15 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 8:39 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 8:39 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 9:40 ` [kernel-hardening] " Solar Designer
2012-03-11 9:40 ` Solar Designer
2012-03-11 17:25 ` [kernel-hardening] " Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-11 17:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-11 17:49 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-03-11 17:49 ` self_exec_id/parent_exec_id && CLONE_PARENT Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-11 18:02 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 18:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 18:37 ` [kernel-hardening] " richard -rw- weinberger
2012-03-11 18:37 ` richard -rw- weinberger
2012-03-11 18:39 ` [kernel-hardening] " Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-11 18:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-14 18:55 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 0/1] (Was: self_exec_id/parent_exec_id && CLONE_PARENT) Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-14 18:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-14 18:55 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 1/1] CLONE_PARENT shouldn't allow to set ->exit_signal Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-14 18:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-18 18:25 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2012-03-18 18:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-18 20:53 ` [kernel-hardening] " Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-18 20:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
[not found] ` <20120314190939.GC14172@redhat.com>
2012-03-19 16:02 ` [PATCH 0/3] exec_id/exit_signal fixes Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-19 16:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] exit_signal: simplify the "we have changed execution domain" logic Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-19 16:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] exit_signal: fix the "parent has changed security " Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-19 16:04 ` [PATCH 3/3] exec: move de_thread()->setmax_mm_hiwater_rss() into exec_mmap() Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-11 22:48 ` [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 1/9] exec: add a global execve counter Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 22:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 23:32 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 23:32 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 23:42 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 23:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-12 0:25 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-12 0:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-12 10:11 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2012-03-12 10:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-12 10:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-12 14:01 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-12 14:01 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-12 14:01 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 23:36 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 23:36 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-12 14:34 ` [kernel-hardening] " Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-12 14:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-10 23:25 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 2/9] proc: add proc_file_private struct to store private information Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 3/9] proc: new proc_exec_id_ok() helper function Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 4/9] proc: protect /proc/<pid>/* INF files from reader across execve Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 5/9] proc: add protection support for /proc/<pid>/* ONE files Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 6/9] proc: protect /proc/<pid>/* ONE files from reader across execve Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 7/9] proc: protect /proc/<pid>/{maps,smaps,numa_maps} Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 8/9] proc: protect /proc/<pid>/{environ,pagemap} across execve Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 8:05 ` [kernel-hardening] " Alexey Dobriyan
2012-03-11 8:05 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2012-03-11 17:01 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 17:01 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 9/9] proc: improve and clean up /proc/<pid>/mem protection Djalal Harouni
2012-03-10 23:25 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 0:01 ` [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 0/9] proc: protect /proc/<pid>/* files across execve Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 0:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-11 0:27 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 0:27 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 8:46 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 8:46 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-11 10:35 ` [kernel-hardening] exec_id protection from bad child exit signals (was: Re: [PATCH 0/9] proc: protect /proc/<pid>/* files across execve) Solar Designer
2012-03-11 10:35 ` Solar Designer
2012-03-11 18:20 ` [kernel-hardening] " Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-11 18:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-12 19:13 ` [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 0/9] proc: protect /proc/<pid>/* files across execve Eric W. Biederman
2012-03-12 19:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-03-12 20:44 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-12 20:44 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-12 21:47 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2012-03-12 21:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-03-12 22:41 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2012-03-12 22:41 ` Djalal Harouni
2012-03-12 23:10 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2012-03-12 23:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120311174953.GB2729@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=segoon@openwall.com \
--cc=solar@openwall.com \
--cc=tixxdz@opendz.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wilsons@start.ca \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.