Re: [PATCH] proc: fix a race in do_io_accounting()

[Vasiliy Kulikov]

On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 12:24 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The order of locking is similar to the one inside of
> > ptrace_attach(): first goes cred_guard_mutex, then lock_task_sighand().
> 
> Hmm. mm_for_maps() uses mutex_lock_killable(), as does lock_trace.

Killable/interruptable here makes sense.


> And neither proc_pid_wchan() nor the fd following ones
> (proc_pid_follow_link etc) use anything at all.
> 
> So I'm not sure. And do we really even care about the theoretical
> race? Even if we do hit the race window and happen to get it just as a
> process turns setuid, it would seem to be totally harmless (we're not
> going to see any of the sensitive IO anyway).

I consider this as a theoretical race too unless there is a crazy bug in
scheduler/timer.  But IMO it's better to just fully remove the risk
(even purely theoretical) given the lock is simple and it doesn't cost
much.


Thanks,

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/