Re: yama: unsafe usage of ptrace_relation->tracer

2019-01-16 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 01/10, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > syzbot is hitting this problem as of linux-next-20190110. > When a patch will be proposed? Well. I have already suggested the patch below several times. It won't fix all problems in this code (I forgot the details but iirc ptracer_exception_found() is broken too,

Re: yama: unsafe usage of ptrace_relation->tracer

2019-01-10 Thread Kees Cook
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:06 AM Tetsuo Handa wrote: > syzbot is hitting this problem as of linux-next-20190110. > When a patch will be proposed? Hi! Sorry, this got delayed over the holidays. Let me finish the patch I was working on and get it published. Thanks! -- Kees Cook

Re: yama: unsafe usage of ptrace_relation->tracer

2019-01-10 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Hello, Kees. syzbot is hitting this problem as of linux-next-20190110. When a patch will be proposed? On 2018/10/30 0:05, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > let me change the subject to avoid the confusion with the already confusing > disccussion about task_is_descendant(). > > On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov

yama: unsafe usage of ptrace_relation->tracer

2018-10-29 Thread Oleg Nesterov
let me change the subject to avoid the confusion with the already confusing disccussion about task_is_descendant(). On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > I still think we need a single pid_alive() check and I even sent the patch. > Attached again at the end. > > To clarify, let me repeat that

yama: unsafe usage of ptrace_relation->tracer

2018-10-29 Thread Oleg Nesterov
let me change the subject to avoid the confusion with the already confusing disccussion about task_is_descendant(). On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > I still think we need a single pid_alive() check and I even sent the patch. > Attached again at the end. > > To clarify, let me repeat that