From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
security@kernel.org, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com>,
Michael Davidson <md@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Security] DoS on x86_64
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:33:54 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001281427220.22433@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B61B00D.7070202@zytor.com>
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> - The actual point of no return in the case of binfmt_elf.c is inside
> the subroutine flush_old_exec() [which makes sense - the actual process
> switch shouldn't be dependent on the binfmt] which isn't subject to
> compat-level macro munging.
Why worry about it? We already do that additional
SET_PERSONALITY(loc->elf_ex);
_after_ the flush_old_exec() call anyway in fs/binfmt_elf.c.
So why not just simply remove the whole early SET_PERSONALITY thing, and
only keep that later one? The comment about "lookup of the interpreter" is
known to be irrelevant these days, so why don't we just remove it all?
I have _not_ tested any of this, and maybe there is some crazy reason why
this won't work, but I'm not seeing it.
I think we do have to do that "task_size" thing (which flush_old_exec()
also does), because it depends on the personality exactly the same way
STACK_TOP does. But why isn't the following patch "obviously correct"?
Linus
---
fs/binfmt_elf.c | 26 ++------------------------
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
index edd90c4..c62462e 100644
--- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
+++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
@@ -662,27 +662,6 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm, struct pt_regs *regs)
if (elf_interpreter[elf_ppnt->p_filesz - 1] != '\0')
goto out_free_interp;
- /*
- * The early SET_PERSONALITY here is so that the lookup
- * for the interpreter happens in the namespace of the
- * to-be-execed image. SET_PERSONALITY can select an
- * alternate root.
- *
- * However, SET_PERSONALITY is NOT allowed to switch
- * this task into the new images's memory mapping
- * policy - that is, TASK_SIZE must still evaluate to
- * that which is appropriate to the execing application.
- * This is because exit_mmap() needs to have TASK_SIZE
- * evaluate to the size of the old image.
- *
- * So if (say) a 64-bit application is execing a 32-bit
- * application it is the architecture's responsibility
- * to defer changing the value of TASK_SIZE until the
- * switch really is going to happen - do this in
- * flush_thread(). - akpm
- */
- SET_PERSONALITY(loc->elf_ex);
-
interpreter = open_exec(elf_interpreter);
retval = PTR_ERR(interpreter);
if (IS_ERR(interpreter))
@@ -730,9 +709,6 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm, struct pt_regs *regs)
/* Verify the interpreter has a valid arch */
if (!elf_check_arch(&loc->interp_elf_ex))
goto out_free_dentry;
- } else {
- /* Executables without an interpreter also need a personality */
- SET_PERSONALITY(loc->elf_ex);
}
/* Flush all traces of the currently running executable */
@@ -747,6 +723,8 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm, struct pt_regs *regs)
/* Do this immediately, since STACK_TOP as used in setup_arg_pages
may depend on the personality. */
SET_PERSONALITY(loc->elf_ex);
+ current->mm->task_size = TASK_SIZE;
+
if (elf_read_implies_exec(loc->elf_ex, executable_stack))
current->personality |= READ_IMPLIES_EXEC;
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-28 22:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-28 7:34 Mathias Krause
2010-01-28 8:18 ` [Security] " Andrew Morton
2010-01-28 15:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-28 22:33 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2010-01-28 22:47 ` Mathias Krause
2010-01-28 22:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-28 23:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-28 23:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-28 23:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-29 4:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-29 4:43 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions Linus Torvalds
2010-01-29 4:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit Linus Torvalds
2010-01-29 5:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:05 ` [Security] DoS on x86_64 H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:36 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 6:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 6:14 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-28 23:06 ` [Security] DoS on x86_64 Linus Torvalds
2010-01-28 23:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-28 21:31 ` Mathias Krause
2010-01-28 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-28 21:49 ` Mathias Krause
2010-01-28 21:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-28 22:08 ` Mathias Krause
2010-01-28 22:18 ` Linus Torvalds
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.1001281427220.22433@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=md@google.com \
--cc=mikew@google.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=minipli@googlemail.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=security@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.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