mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm_access: simplify the security checks
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 14:04:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a8846033-094d-4e1c-bfba-f7f543944709@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ahrwUGytgulEwujN@redhat.com>

On 5/30/26 16:12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

I am not sure I spot the "simplification" here?

Looks more like an optimization that makes the code slightly more complicated.

> 1. Shift the fast-path "mm == current->mm" check from may_access_mm()
>    to mm_access(), and do it locklessly.
> 
>    task->mm is not stable but we do not care. We can race with exec,
>    but in this case we pin/return current->mm. This doesn't differ
>    from the case where the target execs after we drop exec_update_lock.
> 
>    All we need for correctness is READ_ONCE() to ensure the compiler
>    won't reload task->mm. This is not enough for KCSAN, but we already
>    have other lockless ->mm LOAD's. We should probably change exec_mmap/
>    exit_mm to use WRITE_ONCE().
> 
> 2. With the change above, may_access_mm() doesn't need the "mm" argument,
>    so we do not need to call get_task_mm() beforehand. We can call it
>    only if may_access_mm() succeeds.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> ---
>  kernel/fork.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index b8b651abce8b..3239380ab93b 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -1381,10 +1381,8 @@ struct mm_struct *get_task_mm(struct task_struct *task)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_task_mm);
>  
> -static bool may_access_mm(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)
> +static bool may_access_mm(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)

We now have a function named "may_access_mm" and not providing an mm struct
pointer ... it now looks more like an extended, mm-independent ptrace check.

So probably we should rename that function.

>  {
> -	if (mm == current->mm)
> -		return true;
>  	if (ptrace_may_access(task, mode))
>  		return true;
>  	if ((mode & PTRACE_MODE_READ) && perfmon_capable())
> @@ -1394,20 +1392,24 @@ static bool may_access_mm(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *task, unsign
>  
>  struct mm_struct *mm_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)
>  {
> -	struct mm_struct *mm;
> -	int err;
> +	struct mm_struct *mm = READ_ONCE(task->mm);
>  
> -	err =  down_read_killable(&task->signal->exec_update_lock);
> -	if (err)
> -		return ERR_PTR(err);
> +	if (!mm || (task->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ESRCH);
>  
> -	mm = get_task_mm(task);
> -	if (!mm) {
> -		mm = ERR_PTR(-ESRCH);
> -	} else if (!may_access_mm(mm, task, mode)) {
> -		mmput(mm);
> -		mm = ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
> +	if (mm == current->mm) {
> +		mmget(mm);
> +		return mm;
>  	}
> +
> +	if (down_read_killable(&task->signal->exec_update_lock))
> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINTR);
> +
> +	if (may_access_mm(task, mode))
> +		mm = get_task_mm(task) ?: ERR_PTR(-ESRCH);
> +	else
> +		mm = ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
> +
>  	up_read(&task->signal->exec_update_lock);
>  
>  	return mm;


-- 
Cheers,

David

  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-01 12:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-30 13:56 [PATCH] " Oleg Nesterov
2026-05-30 14:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-06-01 11:16   ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2026-05-30 14:12 ` [PATCH v2] " Oleg Nesterov
2026-06-01 12:04   ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [this message]
2026-06-01 12:31     ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-06-01 12:12   ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2026-06-01 12:42     ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-05-30 15:00 ` [PATCH] " Oleg Nesterov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=a8846033-094d-4e1c-bfba-f7f543944709@kernel.org \
    --to=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=kees@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=ljs@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome