linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 3/4] bpf: Add kfuncs for storing struct task

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: <52f31c6f-7adb-78a4-dec5-8da524b4efa6@stuba.sk>
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 11:11:47 +0100
From:   Matus Jokay <matus.jokay@...ba.sk>
To:     void@...ifault.com
Cc:     andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, haoluo@...gle.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        jolsa@...nel.org, kernel-team@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
        memxor@...il.com, sdf@...gle.com, song@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
        yhs@...com, "Ploszek, Roderik" <roderik.ploszek@...ba.sk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 3/4] bpf: Add kfuncs for storing struct
 task_struct * as a kptr

Hello David,

Your idea behind this patch is cool, but I'm afraid that the
implementation is incorrect.

As you can see, the task_struct:rcu_users member shares the same memory
area with the task_struct:rcu (the head of an RCU CB).
Consequence: *violated invariant* that the reference counter will
remain zero after reaching zero!!!
After reaching zero the task_struct:rcu head is set, so further attempts
to access the task_struct:rcu_users may lead to a non-zero value.
For more information see
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjT6LG6sDaZtfeT80B9RaMP-y7RNRM4F5CX2v2Z=o8e=A@mail.gmail.com/
In my opinion, the decision about task_struct:rcu and
task_struct:rcu_users union is very bad, but you should probably consult
the memory separation with authors of the actual implementation.

For now, in our project, we use the following approach:

1) get a reference to a valid task within RCU read-side with
   get_task_struct()
2) in the release function:
    2.1) enter RCU read-side
    2.2) if the task state is not TASK_DEAD: use put_task_struct()
         Note: In the case of a race with an exiting task it's OK to
         call put_task_struct(), because task_struct will be freed
         *after* the current RCU GP thanks to the task_struct:rcu_users
         mechanism.
    2.3) otherwise if test_and_set(my_cb_flag): call_rcu(my_cb)
         Note1: With respect to the RCU CB API you should guarantee that
         your CB will be installed only once within a given RCU GP. For
         that purpose we use my_cb_flag.
         Note2: This code will race with the task_struct:rcu_users
         mechanism [delayed_put_task_struct()], but it's OK. Either the
         delayed_put_task_struct() or my_cb() can be the last to call
         final put_task_struct() after the current RCU GP.
    2.4) otherwise: call put_task_struct()
         Note: The my_cb() is already installed, so within the current
         RCU GP we can invoke put_task_struct() and the ref counter of
         the task_struct will not reach zero.
    2.5) release the RCU read-side
3) The RCU CB my_cb() should set the my_cb_flag to False and call
put_task_struct().

If the release function is called within RCU read-side, the task_struct
is guaranteed to remain valid until the end of the current RCU GP.

Good luck,
mY