Date:	Tue, 9 Aug 2016 17:01:44 -0400
From:	Robert Foss <robert.foss@...labora.com>
To:	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, gorcunov@...nvz.org,
	john.stultz@...aro.org, plaguedbypenguins@...il.com,
	mguzik@...hat.com, adobriyan@...il.com, jdanis@...gle.com,
	calvinowens@...com, mhocko@...e.com, koct9i@...il.com,
	vbabka@...e.cz, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Zhang <benzh@...omium.org>,
	Bryan Freed <bfreed@...omium.org>,
	Filipe Brandenburger <filbranden@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PACTH v1] mm, proc: Implement /proc/<pid>/totmaps



On 2016-08-09 03:24 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:05:43PM -0400, robert.foss@...labora.com wrote:
>> From: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>
>>
>> This is based on earlier work by Thiago Goncales. It implements a new
>> per process proc file which summarizes the contents of the smaps file
>> but doesn't display any addresses.  It gives more detailed information
>> than statm like the PSS (proprotional set size).  It differs from the
>> original implementation in that it doesn't use the full blown set of
>> seq operations, uses a different termination condition, and doesn't
>> displayed "Locked" as that was broken on the original implemenation.
>>
>> This new proc file provides information faster than parsing the potentially
>> huge smaps file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>
>>
>> Tested-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@...labora.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@...labora.com>
>
>
>> +static int totmaps_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
>> +{
>> +	struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
>> +	struct mm_struct *mm;
>> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>> +	struct mem_size_stats *mss_sum = priv->mss;
>> +
>> +	/* reference to priv->task already taken */
>> +	/* but need to get the mm here because */
>> +	/* task could be in the process of exiting */
>
> Can you please elaborate on this? My understanding here is that you
> intend for the caller to be able to repeatedly read the same totmaps
> file with pread() and still see updated information after the target
> process has called execve() and be able to detect process death
> (instead of simply seeing stale values). Is that accurate?
>
> I would prefer it if you could grab a reference to the mm_struct
> directly at open time.

Sonny, do you know more about the above comment?

>
>
>> +	mm = get_task_mm(priv->task);
>> +	if (!mm || IS_ERR(mm))
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>
> get_task_mm() doesn't return error codes, and all other callers just
> check whether the return value is NULL.
>

I'll have that fixed in v2, thanks for spotting it!

>
>> +	down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>> +	hold_task_mempolicy(priv);
>> +
>> +	for (vma = mm->mmap; vma != priv->tail_vma; vma = vma->vm_next) {
>> +		struct mem_size_stats mss;
>> +		struct mm_walk smaps_walk = {
>> +			.pmd_entry = smaps_pte_range,
>> +			.mm = vma->vm_mm,
>> +			.private = &mss,
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		if (vma->vm_mm && !is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)) {
>> +			memset(&mss, 0, sizeof(mss));
>> +			walk_page_vma(vma, &smaps_walk);
>> +			add_smaps_sum(&mss, mss_sum);
>> +		}
>> +	}
>
> Errrr... what? You accumulate values from mem_size_stats items into a
> struct mss_sum that is associated with the struct file? So when you
> read the file the second time, you get the old values plus the new ones?
> And when you read the file in parallel, you get inconsistent values?
>
> For most files in procfs, the behavior is that you can just call
> pread(fd, buf, sizeof(buf), 0) on the same fd again and again, giving
> you the current values every time, without mutating state. I strongly
> recommend that you get rid of priv->mss and just accumulate the state
> in a local variable (maybe one on the stack).

So a simple "static struct mem_size_stats" in totmaps_proc_show() would 
be a better solution?

>
>
>> @@ -836,6 +911,50 @@ static int tid_smaps_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>>  	return do_maps_open(inode, file, &proc_tid_smaps_op);
>>  }
>>
>> +static int totmaps_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>> +{
>> +	struct proc_maps_private *priv;
>> +	int ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +	priv = kzalloc(sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (priv) {
>> +		priv->mss = kzalloc(sizeof(*priv->mss), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +		if (!priv->mss)
>> +			return -ENOMEM;
>
> Memory leak: If the first allocation works and the second one doesn't, this
> doesn't free the first allocation.
>
> Please change this to use the typical goto pattern for error handling.

Fix will be implemented in v2.

>
>> +
>> +		/* we need to grab references to the task_struct */
>> +		/* at open time, because there's a potential information */
>> +		/* leak where the totmaps file is opened and held open */
>> +		/* while the underlying pid to task mapping changes */
>> +		/* underneath it */
>
> Nit: That's not how comments are done in the kernel. Maybe change this to
> a normal block comment instead of one block comment per line?

I'm not sure how that one slipped by, but I'll change it in v2.

>
>> +		priv->task = get_pid_task(proc_pid(inode), PIDTYPE_PID);
>
> `get_pid_task(proc_pid(inode), PIDTYPE_PID)` is exactly the definition
> of get_proc_task(inode), maybe use that instead?
>

Will do. v2 will fix this.

>> +		if (!priv->task) {
>> +			kfree(priv->mss);
>> +			kfree(priv);
>> +			return -ESRCH;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		ret = single_open(file, totmaps_proc_show, priv);
>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			put_task_struct(priv->task);
>> +			kfree(priv->mss);
>> +			kfree(priv);
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>
> Please change this method to use the typical goto pattern for error
> handling. IMO repeating the undo steps in all error cases makes
> mistakes (like the one above) more likely and increases the amount
> of redundant code.

Agreed. Change queued for v2.

>
> Also: The smaps file is only accessible to callers with
> PTRACE_MODE_READ privileges on the target task. Your thing doesn't
> do any access checks, neither in the open handler nor in the read
> handler. Can you give an analysis of why it's okay to expose this
> data? As far as I can tell, without spending a lot of time thinking
> about it, this kind of data looks like it might potentially be
> useful for side-channel information leaks or so.
>

I think it should require the same permissions as smaps, so changing the 
code to require PTRACE_MODE_READ privileges is most likely a good idea. 
I'll have a look at it for v2.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists