[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202110140910.295E856@keescook>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 09:14:21 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
acme <acme@...nel.org>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
0day robot <lkp@...el.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lkp <lkp@...ts.01.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Qiang Zhang <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>,
robdclark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
christian <christian@...uner.io>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
bristot <bristot@...hat.com>,
aubrey li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
yu c chen <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [sched.h] 317419b91e:
perf-sanity-tests.Parse_sched_tracepoints_fields.fail
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:40:04PM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:50 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> >
> > ----- On Oct 14, 2021, at 9:11 AM, Yafang Shao laoar.shao@...il.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:09 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> > > <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> ----- On Oct 14, 2021, at 9:05 AM, Yafang Shao laoar.shao@...il.com wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> >> If it happens that this ABI break is noticed by more than an in-tree test
> > >> >> program, then
> > >> >> the kernel's ABI rules will require that this trace field size stays unchanged.
> > >> >> This brings
> > >> >> up once more the whole topic of "Tracepoints ABI" which has been discussed
> > >> >> repeatedly in
> > >> >> the past.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I will check if any other in-tree tools depends on TASK_COMM_LEN.
> > >>
> > >> That's a start, but given this is a userspace ABI, out-of-tree userland
> > >> tools which depend of this to be fixed-size are also relevant.
> > >>
> > >
> > > TASK_COMM_LEN isn't defined in include/uapi/ directory, so it seems
> > > that it isn't the uerspace ABI?
> >
> > One case where this 16 bytes size is expected by userspace is prctl(2) PR_GET_NAME
> > and PR_SET_NAME.
> >
>
> the prctl(2) man page says that:
> : PR_SET_NAME
> : If the length of the string, including the terminating
> : null byte, exceeds 16 bytes, the string is silently truncated.
> : PR_GET_NAME
> : The buffer should allow space for up to 16 bytes
> : the returned string will be null-terminated.
>
> As the string returned to user space is null-terminated, extending
> task comm won't break the prctl(2) user code.
If userspace was:
char comm[16];
int important_values;
...
prctl(PR_GET_NAME, pid, comm);
the kernel will clobber "important_values", so prctl() must enforce the
old size (and terminate it correctly). It's not okay for us to expect
that userspace get recompiled -- old binaries must continue to work
correctly on kernel kernels.
case PR_GET_NAME:
get_task_comm(comm, me);
if (copy_to_user((char __user *)arg2, comm, sizeof(comm)))
return -EFAULT;
break;
This looks like it needs to be explicitly NUL terminated at 16 as well.
I'd say we need a TASK_COMM_LEN_V1 to use in all the old hard-coded
places.
-Kees
>
> > The other case I am referring to is with ftrace and perf:
> >
> > mount -t tracefs nodev /sys/kernel/tracing
> > cat /sys/kernel/tracing/events/sched/sched_switch/format
> >
> > name: sched_switch
> > ID: 314
> > format:
> > [...]
> > field:char prev_comm[16]; offset:8; size:16; signed:1;
> > [...]
> > field:char next_comm[16]; offset:40; size:16; signed:1;
> >
> > Both of those fields expose a fixed-size of 16 bytes.
> >
> > AFAIK Steven's intent was that by parsing this file, trace viewers could adapt to
> > changes in the event field layout. Unfortunately, there have been cases where
> > trace viewers had a hard expectation on the field layout. Hopefully those have
> > all been fixed a while ago.
> >
>
> I don't have a clear idea what will happen to trace viewers if we
> extend task comm.
>
> Steven, do you have any suggestions ?
>
> --
> Thanks
> Yafang
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists