[REVIEW,v2] mm: Add a user_ns owner to mm_struct and fix ptrace permission checks

Submitted by Eric W. Biederman on Oct. 28, 2016, 4:45 a.m.

Details

Message ID 87pomlm68e.fsf@xmission.com
State New
Series "mm: Add a user_ns owner to mm_struct and fix ptrace permission checks"
Headers show

Commit Message

Eric W. Biederman Oct. 28, 2016, 4:45 a.m. 
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

> Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:39:18AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:54:34AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > I can't imagine either of these changes making a practical difference
>>> > to anyone but I am calling them out in case someone can.
>>> > 
>>> >  include/linux/mm_types.h |  1 +
>>> >  kernel/fork.c            |  9 ++++++---
>>> >  kernel/ptrace.c          | 26 +++++++++++---------------
>>> >  mm/init-mm.c             |  2 ++
>>> >  4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> Thanks a huge, Eric! And really sorry for delay in response,
>>> I managed to miss this quite important mail for me in mail
>>> storm. Gonna test it and will write you the results. Overall looks
>>> great, but better be sure and run the tests.
>>> 
>>> Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>
>>
>> Eric, on which kernel the patch is on top of?
>> It doesn't apply on linux-next for some reason.
>>
>>  | Date:   Thu Oct 27 14:21:59 2016 +1100
>>  | 
>>  |     Add linux-next specific files for 20161027
>>  |     
>>  |     Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
>>
>> I applied it on Linus' master and tests passed fine
>> (but they were passing fine even without the patch,
>>  only linux-next failed).
>
> Odd.  I don't think I have taken the old version out of
> linux-next yet.   So you can probably revert the old version out of
> linux-next and apply this one.  All of my development at this point is
> against v4.9-rc1.
>
> I suspect you will find my last version on top of against v4.9-rc1 will
> pass.  Since my tree is only one deep and I don't think anyone except
> linux-next is based on it, I plan to drop and readd this patch.
> Especially since it is candidate for backporting.

Mind if I add your tested-by?

To see Linus's tree fail with my patch you can apply the patch below.
That is the essence of what I changed to fix things.  Just ignoring
dumpable when an mm exists.

Eric

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox 

diff --git a/kernel/ptrace.c b/kernel/ptrace.c
index 44a25a1e6e83..b53983ee3f03 100644
--- a/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@  static int __ptrace_may_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)
 ok:
        rcu_read_unlock();
        mm = task->mm;
-       if (mm &&
+       if (!mm ||
            ((get_dumpable(mm) != SUID_DUMP_USER) &&
             !ptrace_has_cap(mm->user_ns, mode)))
            return -EPERM;

Comments

Cyrill Gorcunov Oct. 28, 2016, 7:06 a.m. 
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:45:37PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> Mind if I add your tested-by?
> 
> To see Linus's tree fail with my patch you can apply the patch below.
> That is the essence of what I changed to fix things.  Just ignoring
> dumpable when an mm exists.

Tested-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>

Thanks a huge!