On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 07:45:07PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 08:31:37PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 07:13:27PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 17:05 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > This ensures that self_privunit_id ("privilege unit ID") is only shared by
> > > > processes that share the mm_struct and the signal_struct; not just
> > > > spatially, but also temporally. In other words, if you do execve() or
> > > > clone() without CLONE_THREAD, you get a new privunit_id that has never been
> > > > used before.
> > > [...]
> > > > +void increment_privunit_counter(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(NR_CPUS > (1 << 16));
> > > > + current->self_privunit_id = this_cpu_add_return(exec_counter, NR_CPUS);
> > > > +}
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > This will wrap incorrectly if NR_CPUS is not a power of 2 (which is
> > > unusual but allowed).
> >
> > If this wraps, hell breaks loose permission-wise - processes that have
> > no relationship whatsoever with each other will suddenly be able to ptrace
> > each other.
> >
> > The idea is that it never wraps.
>
> That's what I suspected, but wasn't sure. In that case you can
> initialise each counter to U64_MAX/NR_CPUS*cpu and increment by
> 1 each time, which might be more efficient on some architectures.
Makes sense. Will do that!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
