From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuid sometimes doesn't) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:01:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20090329060118.GI28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20090329005343.GA12139@redhat.com> <20090329041022.GF28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20090329045206.GA15519@redhat.com> <20090329055513.GH28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Hugh Dickins , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Joe Malicki , Michael Itz , Kenneth Baker , Chris Wright , David Howells , Alexey Dobriyan , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Oleg Nesterov Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090329055513.GH28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 06:55:13AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 06:52:06AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Let's suppose that check_unsafe_exec() does not set LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE and > > drops ->siglock. After that, another sub-thread does clone(CLONE_FS) without > > CLONE_THREAD. > > Lovely. And yes, AFAICS that's a hole. > > > Unless we killed other threads, I can't see how we can check ->fs is not > > shared with another process, we can fool ->bprm_set_creds() anyway. > > We can't do that, until we are past the point of no return. Charming... > In principle, we can mark these threads as "-EAGAIN on such clone()" and > clean that on exec failure. ... or just do that to fs_struct. After finding that there's no outside users. Commenst?