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:   Sun, 27 Aug 2023 22:19:10 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        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 3/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: fix the
 skip_if_dup_files check

On 08/25, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> On 8/25/23 10:04 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >Forgot to mention in the changelog...
> >
> >In any case this doesn't look right. ->group_leader can exit before other
> >threads, call exit_files(), and in this case task_group_seq_get_next() will
> >check task->files == NULL.
>
> It is okay. This won't be affecting correctness. We will end with
> calling bpf program for 'next_task'.

Well, I didn't mean it is necessarily wrong, I simply do not know.

But let's suppose that we have a thread group with the main thread M + 1000
sub-threads. In the likely case they all have the same ->files, CLONE_THREAD
without CLONE_FILES is not that common.

Let's assume the BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID case for simplicity.

Now lets look at task_file_seq_get_next() which passes skip_if_dup_files == 1
to task_seq_get_next() and thus to task_group_seq_get_next().

Now, in this case task_seq_get_next() will return non-NULL only once (OK, unless
task_file_seq_ops.stop() was called), it will return the group leader M first,
then after task_file_seq_get_next() "reports" all the fd's of M and increments
info->tid, the next task_seq_get_next(&info->tid, true) should return NULL because
of the skip_if_dup_files check in task_group_seq_get_next().

Right?

But. if the group leader M exits then M->files == NULL. And in this case
task_seq_get_next() will need to "inspect" all the sub-threads even if they all
have the same ->files pointer.

No?

Again, I am not saying this is a bug and quite possibly I misread this code, but
in any case the skip_if_dup_files logic looks sub-optimal and confusing to me.

Nevermind, please forget. This is minor even if I am right.

Thanks for rewiev!

Oleg.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ