linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] posix-timers: CRIU woes

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]
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 23:25:15 +0800
From:   Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        syzbot+5c54bd3eb218bb595aa9@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@...onical.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] posix-timers: CRIU woes



On 11.05.2023 21:42, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, May 11 2023 at 17:52, Pavel Tikhomirov wrote:
>> On 11.05.2023 17:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 11 2023 at 11:17, Pavel Tikhomirov wrote:
>>>> On 10.05.2023 16:16, Andrey Vagin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So because of that half thought out user space ABI we are now up the
>>>>>> regression creek without a paddle, unless CRIU can accomodate to a
>>>>>> different restore mechanism to lift this restriction from the kernel.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If you give us a new API to create timers with specified id-s, we will
>>>>> figure out how to live with it. It isn't good to ask users to update
>>>>> CRIU to work on new kernels, but here are reasons and event improvements
>>>>> for CRIU, so I think it's worth it.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, any API to create timers with specified id-s would work for new
>>>> CRIU versions.
>>>
>>> The real question is whether this will cause any upheaval when a new
>>> kernel meets a non-updated CRIU stack.
>>
>> Creation of posix timer would hang forever in this loop
>> https://github.com/checkpoint-restore/criu/blob/33dd66c6fc93c47213aaa0447a94d97ba1fa56ba/criu/pie/restorer.c#L1185
>> if old criu is run on new kernel (without consecutive id allocation) AFAICS.
> 
> Yes, because that "sanity" check
> 
>       if ((long)next_id > args->posix_timers[i].spt.it_id)
> 
> which tries to establish whether the kernel provides timer IDs in strict
> increasing order does not work for that case.
> 
> It "works" to detect the IDR case on older kernels by chance, but not
> under all circumstances. Assume the following case:
> 
>        Global IDR has a free slot at index 1
> 
>        Restore tries to create a timer for index 2
> 
> That will also loop forever, unless some other process creates a timer
> and occupies the free slot at index 1, right?
> 
> So this needs a fix anyway, which should be done so that the new kernel
> case is at least properly detected.
> 
> But even then there is still the problem of "it worked before I upgraded
> the kernel".
> 
> IOW, we are still up a creek without a paddle, unless you would be
> willing to utilize the existing CRIU bug to distribute the 'deal with
> new kernel' mechanics as a bug bounty :)
> 
> Fix for the loop termination below.

I've prepared a PR with your patch (with minimal change) and added you 
Signed-off-by:, hope it's ok:
https://github.com/checkpoint-restore/criu/pull/2174

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>          tglx
> ---
>   criu/pie/restorer.c |   24 +++++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/criu/pie/restorer.c
> +++ b/criu/pie/restorer.c
> @@ -1169,10 +1169,10 @@ static int timerfd_arm(struct task_resto
>   static int create_posix_timers(struct task_restore_args *args)
>   {
>   	int ret, i;
> -	kernel_timer_t next_id;
> +	kernel_timer_t next_id, timer_id;
>   	struct sigevent sev;
>   
> -	for (i = 0; i < args->posix_timers_n; i++) {
> +	for (i = 0, next_id = 0; i < args->posix_timers_n; i++) {
>   		sev.sigev_notify = args->posix_timers[i].spt.it_sigev_notify;
>   		sev.sigev_signo = args->posix_timers[i].spt.si_signo;
>   #ifdef __GLIBC__
> @@ -1183,25 +1183,27 @@ static int create_posix_timers(struct ta
>   		sev.sigev_value.sival_ptr = args->posix_timers[i].spt.sival_ptr;
>   
>   		while (1) {
> -			ret = sys_timer_create(args->posix_timers[i].spt.clock_id, &sev, &next_id);
> +			ret = sys_timer_create(args->posix_timers[i].spt.clock_id, &sev, &timer_id);
>   			if (ret < 0) {
>   				pr_err("Can't create posix timer - %d\n", i);
>   				return ret;
>   			}
>   
> -			if (next_id == args->posix_timers[i].spt.it_id)
> +			if (timer_id != next_id) {
> +				pr_err("Can't create timers, kernel don't give them consequently\n");
> +				return -1;
> +			}
> +
> +			next_id++;
> +
> +			if (timer_id == args->posix_timers[i].spt.it_id)
>   				break;
>   
> -			ret = sys_timer_delete(next_id);
> +			ret = sys_timer_delete(timer_id);
>   			if (ret < 0) {
> -				pr_err("Can't remove temporaty posix timer 0x%x\n", next_id);
> +				pr_err("Can't remove temporaty posix timer 0x%x\n", timer_id);
>   				return ret;
>   			}
> -
> -			if ((long)next_id > args->posix_timers[i].spt.it_id) {
> -				pr_err("Can't create timers, kernel don't give them consequently\n");
> -				return -1;
> -			}
>   		}
>   	}
>   
> 
> 

-- 
Best regards, Tikhomirov Pavel
Senior Software Developer, Virtuozzo.