public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ptrace: ptrace_attach: check PF_KTHREAD + exit_state instead of ->mm
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 06:52:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090506045241.GA26214@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090506020223.A4F1AFC328@magilla.sf.frob.com>

On 05/05, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> This changes the order of the already-traced and security checks.
> It would match the previous behavior to have the ->exit_state and ->ptrace
> checks before __ptrace_may_access().  This is a small nit, but it could
> affect whether some existing harmless usage pattern starts generating new
> access failure logging from security modules (e.g. SELinux avc denials).

Another subtle change I forgot to comment.

> I don't see any reason you can't just swap the order back as it was before.

The last patch in series, "do not use task_lock()", is the reason.

We need tasklist for writing to check (and set) ->ptrace, but we need
task_lock() to call __ptrace_may_access().

We can preserve the current behaviour, we can do get_task_mm() beforehand,
modify __ptrace_may_access() a bit, and call __ptrace_may_access() under
tasklist later (in fact, this was the very first version of this patch which
I didn't send).

But do we really care? If selinux denies to ptrace this task, can't we
return -EACESS regardless of ->ptrace?

Oleg.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-06  4:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-05 22:47 [PATCH 1/3] ptrace: ptrace_attach: check PF_KTHREAD + exit_state instead of ->mm Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-05 23:47 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-05 23:57   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-06  1:24     ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-06  2:06       ` Roland McGrath
2009-05-06  4:56         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-06  5:03           ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-06  7:08   ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-05-06  7:41     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-06  2:02 ` Roland McGrath
2009-05-06  4:52   ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2009-05-07  5:51     ` Roland McGrath
2009-05-09 18:43       ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-10 23:11         ` Roland McGrath

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=20090506045241.GA26214@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=roland@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox