Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=whJttTNFQn1fMYp91LZ90iHE7B2THZ8NjQ7fBwmWX9k6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <87imi8nzlw.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <CAHk-=wgh4zts+3hdkGzHLJ6pBGumcJ=23gRbMfubDrLstis2Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whKHpERyVv2-C+kxq9KV_mJPW3hkGDpn6f4yOvs+au8SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200411182043.GA3136@redhat.com> <CAHk-=wgwXpKepChGi4ZhQVxZxD0ic8s2CDXvUmqBTMaKGz-fjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200412195049.GA23824@redhat.com> <CAHk-=wiDwR+6ugYaKEGHfYteLF+NH5xu=T7uuUTkK9y-hr6zow@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM6PR03MB51708CF53D8A02086427DAC2E4AC0@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAHk-=wi_zr9dwX3UBYvgkmm6eVQfRP50orryJ6ZVAxuFqdSG5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200428190836.GC29960@redhat.com> <CAHk-=wi03QRcUR1DfbEr+Pw-DAMENzY-FuRcGawtj9p597=p2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG48ez03ABTa-KbCtFHqB1hOT7dgAM96c3kiw-e80B+utSEwYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjTLnMuZmBO2foeHhsLAoUTpUi7oBVJ67F4XKB+tdEDbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG48ez3EQOvdbzu9aO-cEAJwF_=fJzn1Cg0LMs3ruc=5r1ie5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez3EQOvdbzu9aO-cEAJwF_=fJzn1Cg0LMs3ruc=5r1ie5w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 15:14:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whTgFbjGTP=CqMWs_LOkY7bWvLQGYKwKx86amdbMovAkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:53 PM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
>
> You don't need LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE if the tracer has already passed a
> ptrace_may_access() check against the post-execve creds of the target
> - that's no different from having done PTRACE_ATTACH after execve is
> over.

Hmm. That sounds believable, I guess.

But along these ways, I'm starting to think that we might perhaps skip
the lock entirely.

What if we made the rule instead be:

 - we move check_unsafe_exec() down. As far as I can tell, there's no
reason it's that early - the flags it sets aren't actually used until
when we actually do that final set_creds..

 - we add a "next cred" pointer to the signal struct (or task struct)

 - make the rule be that check_unsafe_exec() checks p->ptrace under
the tasklist_lock (or sighand lock - whatever ends up being most
convenient)

 - set "next cred" to be the known next cred there too under the lock.
We call this small locked region the "cred sync point".

 - ptrace will check if we have the "in_exec" flag set and have one of
those "next cred" pointers, in which case it checks both the old and
the next credentials.

No cred_guard_mutex at all, instead the rule is that as execve() goes
through that "cred sync point", we have two cases

 (a) either ptrace has attached (because task->ptrace is set), and it
does the LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE dance.

or

 (b) it knows that ptrace will check the next creds if it races with execve.

And then after execve has installed the final new creds, it just
clears the "next cred" pointer again, because at that point it knows
that now any subsequent PTRACE_ATTACH will be checking the new creds.

So instead of taking and dropping the cred_guard_mutex, we'd basically
get rid of it entirely.

Yeah, I didn't look at the seccomp case, but I guess the issues will be similar.

             Linus