Message-ID: <20080425201800.GD9833@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Date:	Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:18:00 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Petr Gajdos <pgajdos@...e.cz>, michael.kerrisk@...il.com,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: core_pattern pipe documentation

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:05:35PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 08:13:21PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 03:18:46PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > > > > Hi Neil,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 02:09:14PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > > > > > > Andi -- ping!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adding Neil to CC, since it looks like he also did some work here, and
> > > > > > > so can perhaps comment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Michael Kerrisk
> > > > > > > <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Andi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wrote the following description of the core_pattern pipe feature.  Does this
> > > > > > > > seem okay?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Piping core dumps to a program
> > > > > > > >       Since kernel 2.6.19, Linux supports an  alternate  syntax
> > > > > > > >       for the /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern file.  If the first
> > > > > > > >       character of this file is a pipe  symbol  (|),  then  the
> > > > > > > >       remainder  of  the line is interpreted as a program to be
> > > > > > > >       executed.  Instead of being written to a disk  file,  the
> > > > > > > >       core  dump  is  given  as  standard input to the program.
> > > > > > > >       Note the following points:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >       *  The program must be specified using an absolute  path-
> > > > > > > >          name  (or  a  pathname relative to the root directory,
> > > > > > > >          /), and must immediately follow the '|' character.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >       *  The process created to run the program  runs  as  user
> > > > > > > >          and group root.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >       *  Arguments can be supplied to the program, delimited by
> > > > > > > >          white space (up to a total line length of 128  bytes).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for CC'ing me.  The above all looks good.  I would add documentation
> > > > > > however, about the available macros that can be used when core_pattern is
> > > > > > specified as a pipe.  Adding something like the following would be good:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >        * Arguments can be statically declared or implied via the use of macros,
> > > > > >          denoted by the use of the %sign.  The following macros are supported:
> > > > > >                * %% - output a literal % sign on the command line
> > > > > >                * %p - the pid of the crashing process
> > > > > >                * %u - the uid of the crashing process
> > > > > >                * %g - the gid of the crashing process
> > > > > >                * %s - the signal that caused the crashing process to crash
> > > > > >                * %t - the time the crashing process dumped
> > > > > >                * %h - the hostname of the system
> > > > > >                * %e - the executable name of the crashing process
> > > > > >                * %c - the core limit size of the crashing process
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for pointing that out!  I'll note it in the page.
> > > > >
> > > > > >          Note that the core limit size macro may be a different value than what
> > > > > >          is returned by getrlimit(RLIMIT_CORE,...).  This is due to the fact
> > > > > >          that the core_pattern specified executible will be run as the same uid
> > > > > >          as the crashing process, and to facilitate reception of the entire
> > > > > >          core, the kernel will temporarily set RLIMIT_CORE to unlimited while
> > > > > >          the dump is in progress.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, I can't seem to get an example of this behavior.  In my
> > > > > experiments, %c always seems to give the "right" info (i.e., I don't
> > > > > ever see %c showing 2^32 (unlimited) when I set a soft limit).  Can
> > > > > you show a specific case where it doesn't give the "right" value?
> > > > >
> > > > Oops, you're right.  I had initially implemented my core pattern updates this
> > > > way, but in the end wound up just ignoring the limit in do_coredump, rather than
> > > > re-writing it.  Thanks for that.  You can scratch this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >          Note also %u and %g may be different values
> > > > > >          than getuid/getgid in the event that the core_pattern executable is
> > > > > >          set[u|g]id root
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm slightly confused by that last point.  According to my
> > > > > experiments, the core_pattern executable is always run as user and
> > > > > group root, so making it set[ug]id root would seem to be a no-op.
> > > > > (But anyway, %u and %g do give the "right" values -- the UID and GID
> > > > > of the dumping process.)
> > > > >
> > > > Hmm, are you sure, I was under the impression that we fork the usermodehelper in
> > > > do_coredump as a parent of current, which has the dumping processes uid/gid.  I
> > > > do see that in do_coredump we call get_dumpable(mm) and if it returns with the
> > > > appropriate value we switch current->fsuid to 0.  I wonder if thats what you're
> > > > seeing?
> > >
> > > Have a look at the following.  It demonstrates what I'm seeing (that
> > > the coredump program is run as root/root).
> > >
> > > ===
> > > $ cat core_pattern_test.c
> > > /* core_pattern_test.c */
> > >
> > > #define _GNU_SOURCE
> > > #include <sys/stat.h>
> > > #include <fcntl.h>
> > > #include <stdio.h>
> > > #include <stdlib.h>
> > > #include <unistd.h>
> > >
> > > #define BUF_SIZE 1024
> > >
> > > int
> > > main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > > {
> > >     int fd, tot, j;
> > >     ssize_t nread;
> > >     char buf[BUF_SIZE];
> > >     FILE *fp;
> > >
> > >     fd = open(argv[1], O_CREAT | O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC, 0666);
> > >     if (fd == -1)
> > >         exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> > >
> > >     fp = fdopen(fd, "a");
> > >
> > >     fprintf(fp, "PID=%ld\n", (long) getpid());
> > >     fprintf(fp, "cwd=%s\n", get_current_dir_name());
> > >     fprintf(fp, "UID=%ld; EUID=%ld\n", (long) getuid(), (long) geteuid());
> > >     fprintf(fp, "GID=%ld; EGID=%ld\n", (long) getgid(), (long) getegid());
> > >
> > >     fprintf(fp, "argc=%d\n", argc);
> > >     for (j = 0; j < argc; j++)
> > >         fprintf(fp, "argc[%d]=<%s>\n", j, argv[j]);
> > >
> > >     /* Count bytes in standard input */
> > >
> > >     tot = 0;
> > >     while ((nread = read(STDIN_FILENO, buf, BUF_SIZE)) > 0)
> > >         tot += nread;
> > >     fprintf(fp, "Total bytes in core dump: %d\n", tot);
> > >
> > >     exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
> > > }
> > > $ cc core_pattern_test.c
> > > $ sudo sh -c 'echo "|$PWD/core_pattern_test $PWD/c p_%p u_%u g_%g t_%t
> > > c_%c" > /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern'
> > > root's password:
> > > $ id
> > > uid=1000(mtk) gid=100(users) groups=16(dialout),33(video),100(users)
> > > $ sleep 100
> > > [type ^\]
> > > Quit (core dumped)
> > > $ cat c
> > > PID=6743
> > > cwd=/
> > > UID=0; EUID=0
> > > GID=0; EGID=0
> > > argc=7
> > > argc[0]=</home/mtk/man-pages/man5/core_pattern_test>
> > > argc[1]=</home/mtk/man-pages/man5/c>
> > > argc[2]=<p_6742>
> > > argc[3]=<u_1000>
> > > argc[4]=<g_100>
> > > argc[5]=<t_1209146940>
> > > argc[6]=<c_4294967295>
> > > Total bytes in core dump: 282624
> > > $
> > > ===
> > >
> > > Your thoughts?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > I certainly don't doubt your results.  The uid/gid options IIRC were there when
> > I made my updates and so I left them alone, wokring under the asumption that
> > thats what they were there for.  Clearly you have evidence to the contrary here.
> > It seems like we should run the core collector as the uid of the dumping
> > process, simply because it doesn't need to be run as root (and one could force
> > the running of the commadn as root using the suid bit on the executable file).
> >
> > I say documented like your experiment shows it to work, and I'll try to find
> > some time to investigate where we switch uids and why.
> 
> There was another aspect of this behavior that bugs me.  The current
> working directory of the dumping program is /.  This means it's
> impossible for the dumping program to produce an output file in the
> current working directory of the program that is crashing (which of
> course is where a "core" file is normally written).  Is that really
> intended behavior?

I'm a bit hazy, but IIRC, the idea was that for environment stuff, as long as
you had the pid of the crashing process (which you do), you can grab the rest of
the environment out of /proc/<pid>/environ

Regards
Neil

-- 
/****************************************************
 * Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
 * Software Engineer, Red Hat
 ****************************************************/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists