On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:57:10AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> writes:
>
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 02:45:33PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> The current idiom for the callers is:
> >>
> >> flush_old_exec(bprm);
> >> set_personality(...);
> >> setup_new_exec(bprm);
> >>
> >> In 2010 Linus split flush_old_exec into flush_old_exec and
> >> setup_new_exec. With the intention that setup_new_exec be what is
> >> called after the processes new personality is set.
> >>
> >> Move the code that doesn't depend upon the personality from
> >> setup_new_exec into flush_old_exec. This is to facilitate future
> >> changes by having as much code together in one function as possible.
> >
> > Er, I *think* this is okay, but I have some questions below which
> > maybe you already investigated (and should perhaps get called out in
> > the changelog).
>
> I will see if I can expand more on the review that I have done.
>
> I saw this as moving thre lines and the personality setting later in the
> code, rather than moving a bunch of lines up
>
> AKA these lines:
> >> + arch_pick_mmap_layout(me->mm, &bprm->rlim_stack);
> >> +
> >> + arch_setup_new_exec();
> >> +
> >> + /* Set the new mm task size. We have to do that late because it may
> >> + * depend on TIF_32BIT which is only updated in flush_thread() on
> >> + * some architectures like powerpc
> >> + */
> >> + me->mm->task_size = TASK_SIZE;
>
>
> I verified carefully that only those three lines can depend upon the
> personality changes.
>
> Your concern if anything depends on those moved lines I haven't looked
> at so closely so I will go back through and do that. I don't actually
> expect anything depends upon those three lines because they should only
> be changing architecture specific state. But that is general handwaving
> not actually careful review which tends to turn up suprises in exec.
Right -- I looked through all of it (see my last email) and I think it's
all okay, but I was curious if you'd looked too. :)
> Speaking of while I was looking through the lsm hooks again I just
> realized that 613cc2b6f272 ("fs: exec: apply CLOEXEC before changing
> dumpable task flags") only fixed half the problem. So I am going to
> take a quick detour fix that then come back to this. As that directly
> affects this code motion.
Oh yay. :) Thanks for catching it!
--
Kees Cook
