On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:35 PM Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Allow a complete ptrace access check with mode PTRACE_MODE_SCHED. > Disable the inappropriate privilege check in the capability code > that does incompatible locking. What's that locking you're talking about? > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > kernel/ptrace.c | 2 -- > security/commoncap.c | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/ptrace.c b/kernel/ptrace.c > index 99cfddde6a55..0b6a9df51c3b 100644 > --- a/kernel/ptrace.c > +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c > @@ -331,8 +331,6 @@ static int __ptrace_may_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode) > !ptrace_has_cap(mm->user_ns, mode))) > return -EPERM; > > - if (mode & PTRACE_MODE_SCHED) > - return 0; > return security_ptrace_access_check(task, mode); > } > > diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c > index 2e489d6a3ac8..e77457110d05 100644 > --- a/security/commoncap.c > +++ b/security/commoncap.c > @@ -152,6 +152,8 @@ int cap_ptrace_access_check(struct task_struct *child, unsigned int mode) > if (cred->user_ns == child_cred->user_ns && > cap_issubset(child_cred->cap_permitted, *caller_caps)) > goto out; > + if (mode & PTRACE_MODE_SCHED) > + goto out; So for PTRACE_MODE_SCHED, this function always returns 0, right? If that's intentional, perhaps you should instead just put "if (mode & PTRACE_MODE_SCHED) return 0;" at the start of the function, to avoid taking the RCU read lock in this case. > if (ns_capable(child_cred->user_ns, CAP_SYS_PTRACE)) > goto out; > ret = -EPERM; _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
