On Sep 18, 2016 8:45 AM, "Ben Hutchings" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> > It wraps after (2^64)/NR_CPUS execs or
> > forks on one CPU core. NR_CPUS is bounded to <=2^16, so in the worst case,
> > it wraps after 2^48 execs or forks.
> >
> > On my system with 3.7GHz per core, 2^16 minimal sequential non-thread clone()
> > calls need 1 second system time (and 2 seconds wall clock time, but let's
> > disregard that), so 2^48 non-thread clone() calls should need over 100 years.
> >
> > But I guess both the kernel and machines get faster - if you think the margin
> > might not be future-proof enough (or if you think I measured wrong and it's
> > actually much faster), I guess I could bump this to a 128bit number.
>
> Sequential execution speed isn't likely to get significantly faster so
> with those current numbers this seems to be quite safe.
>
But how big can NR_CPUs get before this gets uncomfortable?
We could do:
struct luid {
u64 count:
unsigned cpu;
};
(LUID = locally unique ID).
IIRC my draft PCID code does something similar to uniquely identify
mms. If I accidentally reused a PCID without a flush, everything
would explode.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
