kernel BUG at kernel/cred.c:434!

[Yang Yingliang]

On 2019/4/19 10:04, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:50 PM Yang Yingliang
> <yangyingliang at huawei.com> wrote:
>> On 2019/4/18 8:24, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>> On 4/17/2019 4:39 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>> Since it looks like all three LSMs which implement the setprocattr
>>>> hook are vulnerable I'm open to the idea that proc_pid_attr_write() is
>>>> a better choice for the cred != read_cred check, but I would want to
>>>> make sure John and Casey are okay with that.
>>>>
>>>> John?
>>>>
>>>> Casey?
>>> I'm fine with the change going into proc_pid_attr_write().
>> The cred != real_cred checking is not enough.
>>
>> Consider this situation, when doing override, cred, real_cred and
>> new_cred are all same:
>>
>> after override_creds()    cred == real_cred == new1_cred
> I'm sorry, you've lost me.  After override_creds() returns
> current->cred and current->real_cred are not going to be the same,
> yes?
It's possible the new  cred is equal to current->real_cred and 
current->cred,
so after overrides_creds(), they have the same value.
>
>> after prepare_creds()     new2_cred
>> after commit_creds()     becasue the check is false, so cred ==
>> real_cred == new2_cred
>> after revert_creds()        cred == new1_cred, real_cred == new2_cred
>>
>> It will cause cred != real_cred finally.