linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] pidfd: allow pidfd_open() on non-thread-group leaders

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: <ZbArN3EYRfhrNs3o@tycho.pizza>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:10:15 -0700
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] pidfd: allow pidfd_open() on non-thread-group
 leaders

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:56:08PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Too late for me, but I don't understand this patch after a quick glance.
> perhaps I missed something...

Thanks for taking a look.

> On 01/23, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >
> > @@ -256,6 +256,17 @@ void release_task(struct task_struct *p)
> >  	write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> >  	ptrace_release_task(p);
> >  	thread_pid = get_pid(p->thread_pid);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If we're not the leader, notify any waiters on our pidfds. Note that
> > +	 * we don't want to notify the leader until /everyone/ in the thread
> > +	 * group is dead, viz. the condition below.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * We have to do this here, since __exit_signal() will
> > +	 * __unhash_processes(), and break do_notify_pidfd()'s lookup.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!thread_group_leader(p))
> > +		do_notify_pidfd(p);
> 
> This doesn't look consistent.
> 
> If the task is a group leader do_notify_pidfd() is called by exit_notify()
> when it becomes a zombie (if no other threads), before it is reaped by its
> parent (unless autoreap).

There is another path, also in release_task(), that I was trying to
mirror since it deals explicitly with sub-threads but,

> If it is a sub-thread, it is called by release_task() above. Note that a
> sub-thread can become a zombie too if it is traced.

I didn't know about this.

> >  	__exit_signal(p);
> 
> and,  do_notify_pidfd() is called before __exit_signal() which does
> __unhash_process() -> detach_pid(PIDTYPE_PID).
> 
> Doesn't this mean that pidfd_poll() can hang? thread_group_exited()
> won't return true after do_notify_pidfd() above, not to mention that
> thread_group_empty() is not possible if !thread_group_leader().

I was wondering about this too, but the test_non_tgl_poll_exit test in
the next patch tests exactly this and works as expected.

> So. When do we want to do do_notify_pidfd() ? Whe the task (leader or not)
> becomes a zombie (passes exit_notify) or when it is reaped by release_task?

It seems like we'd want it when exit_notify() is called in principle,
since that's when the pid actually dies. When it is reaped is "mostly
unrelated". Something like,

1. in the "normal" exit_notify() paths via do_notify_parent()
2. if none of those cases are true (aka the final else in
   exit_notify()) and the thread is not ptraced
3. via release_task() finally if this was the thread group leader and
   it died before some sub-thread

then in pidfd_poll(), we can do:

    if (!tsk || (tsk->exit_state >= 0) || thread_group_exited())
        do_notify_pidfd();

?

> Either way pidfd_poll() needs more changes with this patch and it can't
> use thread_group_exited(). If do_notify_pidfd() is called by release_task()
> after __exit_signal(), it can just check pid_has_task(PIDTYPE_PID).

I suppose this is why my test works, since pid_task(PIDTYPE_PID) is null
after release_task(). But if we want it to happen earlier, we'll have
to do something like the above.

Tycho