linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] pid: modify task_tgid

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140224184013.GB21474@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:40:13 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-audit@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	eparis@...hat.com, sgrubb@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] pid: modify task_tgid_nr to work without
	task->tgid.

On 02/21, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>
> On 14/02/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/23, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > >
> > > task->tgid is an error prone construct and results in duplicate maintenance.
> > > Start it's demise by modifying task_tgid_nr to not use it.
> >
> > Well, I disagree.
> >
> > Yes I agree that ->tgid should probably die. But this change itself doesn't
> > help, it only makes task_tgid_nr() slower. We need to convert other users
> > first, then consider this change along with ->tgid removal.
>
> I thought I recently saw a statistic that there were only 7 instances of
> ->tgid, but a quick search comes up with >50 outside of audit!

Yes, so I don't think it makes sense to start from task_tgid_nr().

> > > -	return tsk->tgid;
> > > +	return pid_nr(task_tgid(tsk));
> > >  }
> >
> > And what protect task_tgid? This is racy.
> >
> > The race is very unlikely, pid_nr() will likely hit pid == NULL if tsk
> > exits. But still it can use the freed/unmapped/reused memory.
>
> So at the very least, I'd need
>
> static inline pid_t task_tgid_nr(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> 	return pid_nr(is_alive(tsk) ? task_tgid(tsk) : NULL);
> }
>
> And it sounds like I might even need this since the status of is_alive
> could change between the time I call it and the time I call task_tgid:
>
> static inline pid_t task_tgid_nr(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> 	pid_t pid;
>
> 	task_lock(&tsk);
> 	pid = pid_nr(is_alive(tsk) ? task_tgid(tsk) : NULL);
> 	task_unlock(&tsk);
> 	return pid;
> }
>
> Is task_lock() sufficient, or do I need the heavier
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock)?

You need rcu_read_lock(), I think. In any case task_lock() has nothing to
do with pids.

> > And even if we add rcu_read_lock() the patch will add the semantics change,
> > task_tgid_nr() can return 0 if tsk has already exited. At least this should
> > be documented, but you also need to audit the users.
>
> Basically check for an inline error return of 0 signalling a failure
> rather than the idle task.

Perhaps...

Oleg.

--
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/