public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, io-uring <[email protected]>,
	"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
	linux-fsdevel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] signalfd: add support for SFD_TASK
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 23:46:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez11PjWtaFrPqtU6yPKsm0_0Sb3Te-8bvVQLEozDzx7cFw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez1FK6h4tEv=cGGtm84NXDkeiMV+woFmqQYPbcsOZjKxZw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 8:18 PM Jann Horn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:07 AM Jann Horn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:02 AM Rasmus Villemoes
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 28/11/2019 00.27, Jann Horn wrote:
> > >
> > > > One more thing, though: We'll have to figure out some way to
> > > > invalidate the fd when the target goes through execve(), in particular
> > > > if it's a setuid execution. Otherwise we'll be able to just steal
> > > > signals that were intended for the other task, that's probably not
> > > > good.
> > > >
> > > > So we should:
> > > >  a) prevent using ->wait() on an old signalfd once the task has gone
> > > > through execve()
> > > >  b) kick off all existing waiters
> > > >  c) most importantly, prevent ->read() on an old signalfd once the
> > > > task has gone through execve()
> > > >
> > > > We probably want to avoid using the cred_guard_mutex here, since it is
> > > > quite broad and has some deadlocking issues; it might make sense to
> > > > put the update of ->self_exec_id in fs/exec.c under something like the
> > > > siglock,
> > >
> > > What prevents one from exec'ing a trivial helper 2^32-1 times before
> > > exec'ing into the victim binary?
> >
> > Uh, yeah... that thing should probably become 64 bits wide, too.
>
> Actually, that'd still be wrong even with the existing kernel code for
> two reasons:
>
>  - if you reparent to a subreaper, the existing exec_id comparison breaks

... actually, I was wrong about this, this case is fine because the
->exit_signal is reset in reparent_leader().

  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-28 22:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-27  5:11 [PATCH RFC] signalfd: add support for SFD_TASK Jens Axboe
2019-11-27 19:23 ` Jann Horn
2019-11-27 20:48   ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-27 23:27     ` Jann Horn
2019-11-28  0:41       ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-28  9:02       ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-11-28 10:07         ` Jann Horn
2019-11-28 19:18           ` Jann Horn
2019-11-28 22:46             ` Jann Horn [this message]
2019-11-29 22:30             ` Jann Horn

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=CAG48ez11PjWtaFrPqtU6yPKsm0_0Sb3Te-8bvVQLEozDzx7cFw@mail.gmail.com \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /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