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]

Message-ID: <87fs47qm5u.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2023 08:36:13 -0500
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        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()

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:

> OK, it seems that you are not going to take these preparatory
> cleanups ;)
>
> I'll resend along with the s/next_thread/__next_thread/ change.
> I was going to do the last change later, but this recent discussion
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143112.GA31208@redhat.com/
> makes me think we should do this right now.

For the record I find this code confusing, and wrong.

It looks like it wants to keep the task_struct pointer or possibly the
struct pid pointer like proc does, but then it winds up keeping a
userspace pid value and regenerating both the struct pid pointer and
the struct task_struct pointer.

Which means that task_group_seq_get_next is unnecessarily slow and has
a built in race condition which means it could wind up iterating through
a different process.

This whole thing looks to be a bad (aka racy) reimplementation of
first_tid and next_tid from proc.  I thought the changes were to
adapt to the needs of bpf, but on closer examination the code is
just racy.

For this code to be correct bpf_iter_seq_task_common needs to store
at a minimum a struct pid pointer.

Oleg your patch makes it easier to see what the how
far this is from first_tid/next_tid in proc.

Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>

Eric