linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: cleanup the usage of next

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:   Mon, 21 Aug 2023 21:54:58 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@...il.com>
Cc:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: cleanup the usage of
 next_thread()

So I still think the pid_alive() check should die...

and when I look at this code again I don't understand why does it abuse
task_struct->usage, I'll send another patch on top of this one.

On 08/21, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/21, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/21/23 08:09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >1. find_pid_ns() + get_pid_task() under rcu_read_lock() guarantees that we
> > >    can safely iterate the task->thread_group list. Even if this task exits
> > >    right after get_pid_task() (or goto retry) and pid_alive() returns 0 >
> > >    Kill the unnecessary pid_alive() check.
> >
> > This function will return next_task holding a refcount, and release the
> > refcount until the next time calling the same function. Meanwhile,
> > the returned task A may be killed, and its next task B may be
> > killed after A as well, before calling this function again.
> > However, even task B is destroyed (free), A's next is still pointing to
> > task B. When this function is called again for the same iterator,
> > it doesn't promise that B is still there.
>
> Not sure I understand...
>
> OK, if we have a task pointer with incremented refcount and do not hold
> rcu lock, then yes, you can't remove the pid_alive() check in this code:
>
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	if (pid_alive(task))
> 		do_something(next_thread(task));
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
>
> because task and then task->next can exit and do call_rcu(delayed_put_task_struct)
> before we take rcu_read_lock().
>
> But if you do something like
>
> 	rcu_read_lock();
>
> 	task = find_task_in_some_rcu_protected_list();
> 	do_something(next_thread(task));
>
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
>
> then next_thread(task) should be safe without pid_alive().
>
> And iiuc task_group_seq_get_next() always does
>
> 	rcu_read_lock();	// the caller does lock/unlock
>
> 	task = get_pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> 	if (!task)
> 		return;
>
> 	next_task = next_thread(task);
>
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
>
> Yes, both task and task->next can exit right after get_pid_task(), but since
> can only happen after we took rcu_read_lock(), delayed_put_task_struct() can't
> be called until we drop rcu lock.
>
> What have I missed?
>
> Oleg.