linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] stacktrace,sched: Make stack_trace_save

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: <202110251351.6B61CE297@keescook>
Date:   Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:52:07 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        zhengqi.arch@...edance.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
        gor@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, ardb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] stacktrace,sched: Make stack_trace_save_tsk() more
 robust

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:38:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 07:01:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 05:54:31PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > 
> > > > Pardon my thin understanding of the scheduler, but I assume this change
> > > > doesn't mean stack_trace_save_tsk() stops working for "current", right?
> > > > In trying to answer this for myself, I couldn't convince myself what value
> > > > current->__state have here. Is it one of TASK_(UN)INTERRUPTIBLE ?
> > > 
> > > Regardless of that, current->on_rq will be non-zero, so you're right that this
> > > causes stack_trace_save_tsk() to not work for current, e.g.
> > > 
> > > | # cat /proc/self/stack 
> > > | # wc  /proc/self/stack 
> > > |         0         0         0 /proc/self/stack
> > > 
> > > TBH, I think that (taking a step back from this issue in particular)
> > > stack_trace_save_tsk() *shouldn't* work for current, and callers *should* be
> > > forced to explicitly handle current separately from blocked tasks.
> > 
> > That..
> 
> So I think I'd prefer the following approach to that (and i'm not
> currently volunteering for it):
> 
>  - convert all archs to ARCH_STACKWALK; this gets the semantics out of
>    arch code and into the single kernel/stacktrace.c file.
> 
>  - bike-shed a new/improved stack_trace_save*() API and implement it
>    *once* in generic code based on arch_stack_walk().
> 
>  - convert users; delete old etc..
> 
> For now, current users of stack_trace_save_tsk() very much expect
> tsk==current to work.
> 
> > > So we could fix this in the stacktrace code with:
> > > 
> > > | diff --git a/kernel/stacktrace.c b/kernel/stacktrace.c
> > > | index a1cdbf8c3ef8..327af9ff2c55 100644
> > > | --- a/kernel/stacktrace.c
> > > | +++ b/kernel/stacktrace.c
> > > | @@ -149,7 +149,10 @@ unsigned int stack_trace_save_tsk(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned long *store,
> > > |                 .skip   = skipnr + (current == tsk),
> > > |         };
> > > |  
> > > | -       task_try_func(tsk, try_arch_stack_walk_tsk, &c);
> > > | +       if (tsk == current)
> > > | +               try_arch_stack_walk_tsk(tsk, &c);
> > > | +       else
> > > | +               task_try_func(tsk, try_arch_stack_walk_tsk, &c);
> > > |  
> > > |         return c.len;
> > > |  }
> > > 
> > > ... and we could rename task_try_func() to blocked_task_try_func(), and
> > > later push the distinction into higher-level callers.
> > 
> > I think I favour this fix if we have to. But that's for next week :-)
> 
> I ended up with the below delta to this patch.
> 
> --- a/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static bool stack_trace_consume_entry_no
>  }
>  
>  /**
> - * stack_trace_save - Save a stack trace into a storage array
> + * stack_trace_save - Save a stack trace (of current) into a storage array
>   * @store:	Pointer to storage array
>   * @size:	Size of the storage array
>   * @skipnr:	Number of entries to skip at the start of the stack trace
> @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ static int try_arch_stack_walk_tsk(struc
>  
>  /**
>   * stack_trace_save_tsk - Save a task stack trace into a storage array
> - * @task:	The task to examine
> + * @task:	The task to examine (current allowed)
>   * @store:	Pointer to storage array
>   * @size:	Size of the storage array
>   * @skipnr:	Number of entries to skip at the start of the stack trace
> @@ -149,13 +149,25 @@ unsigned int stack_trace_save_tsk(struct
>  		.skip	= skipnr + (current == tsk),
>  	};
>  
> -	task_try_func(tsk, try_arch_stack_walk_tsk, &c);
> +	/*
> +	 * If the task doesn't have a stack (e.g., a zombie), the stack is
> +	 * empty.
> +	 */
> +	if (!try_get_task_stack(tsk))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (tsk == current)
> +		try_arch_stack_walk_tsk(tsk, &c);
> +	else
> +		task_try_func(tsk, try_arch_stack_walk_tsk, &c);
> +
> +	put_task_stack(tsk);
>  
>  	return c.len;
>  }
>  
>  /**
> - * stack_trace_save_regs - Save a stack trace based on pt_regs into a storage array
> + * stack_trace_save_regs - Save a stack trace (of current) based on pt_regs into a storage array
>   * @regs:	Pointer to pt_regs to examine
>   * @store:	Pointer to storage array
>   * @size:	Size of the storage array

Looks good to me, though I did like Mark's idea to name "task_try_func"
to "task_blocked_try_func" or something like that to make the "why can
this fail?" be more self-documenting. *shrug*

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook