linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 15/24] proc/fd: In proc_readfd_common use task_lookup_next_fd

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201209142359.GN3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 14:23:59 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        criu@...nvz.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Daniel P . Berrangé <berrange@...hat.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lavr <andy.lavr@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/24] proc/fd: In proc_readfd_common use
 task_lookup_next_fd_rcu

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:24:57PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 04:38:09PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> >> Is there any reason we don't simply rcu free the files_struct?
> >> That would remove the need for the task_lock entirely.
> >
> > Umm...  Potentially interesting part here is the interaction with
> > close_files(); currently that can't overlap with any of those
> > 3rd-party accesses to descriptor table, but with your changes
> > here it's very much possible.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> I was worried there might have been a concern about the overhead
> introduced by always rcu freeing files table.
> 
> > OTOH, it's not like close_files() did much beyond the effects of already
> > possible close(2) done by one of the threads sharing that sucker.
> > It's _probably_ safe (at least for proc_readfd_common()), but I'll need
> > to look at the other places doing that kind of access.  Especially the
> > BPF foulness...

Still digging, unfortunately ;-/

> > Oh, and in any case, the trick with repurposing ->rcu of embedded
> > fdtable deserves a comment.  It's not hard to explain, so...
> 
> Agreed.  Something like fdtable.rcu isn't used so use it so by reusing
> it we keep from wasting memory in files_struct to have a dedicated
> rcu_head.

I'd probably go for something along the lines of "we can avoid adding
a separate rcu_head into files_struct, since rcu_head in struct fdtable
is only used for separately allocated instances, allowing us to repurpose
files_struct->fdtab.rcu for RCU-delayed freeing of files_struct"...