[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqSeATEMTB_hRt9D9teW6GcDvz4VLfMQyvX=nvgR4Uu4+AgoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:06:32 -0500
From: YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@...il.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@...cmu.edu>,
Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
Hubertus Franke <frankeh@...ibm.com>,
Jack Chen <jianyan2@...inois.edu>,
Josep Torrellas <torrella@...inois.edu>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Tianyin Xu <tyxu@...inois.edu>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@...hat.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 seccomp 5/5] seccomp/cache: Report cache data through /proc/pid/seccomp_cache
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 5:01 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> Hmm, this won't work, because the task could be exiting, and seccomp
> filters are detached in release_task() (using
> seccomp_filter_release()). And at the moment, seccomp_filter_release()
> just locklessly NULLs out the tsk->seccomp.filter pointer and drops
> the reference.
>
> The locking here is kind of gross, but basically I think you can
> change this code to use lock_task_sighand() / unlock_task_sighand()
> (see the other examples in fs/proc/base.c), and bail out if
> lock_task_sighand() returns NULL. And in seccomp_filter_release(), add
> something like this:
>
> /* We are effectively holding the siglock by not having any sighand. */
> WARN_ON(tsk->sighand != NULL);
Ah thanks. I was thinking about how tasks exit and get freed and that
sort of stuff, and how this would race against them. The last time I
worked with procfs there was some magic going on that I could not
figure out, so I was thinking if some magic will stop the task_struct
from being released, considering it's an argument here.
I just looked at release_task and related functions; looks like it
will, at the end, decrease the reference count of the task_struct.
Does procfs increase the refcount while calling the procfs functions?
Hence, in procfs functions one can rely on the task_struct still being
a task_struct, but any direct effects of release_task may happen while
the procfs functions are running?
YiFei Zhu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists