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  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:   Wed, 6 May 2020 11:24:45 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
CC:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/20] bpf: add task and task/file iterator
 targets



On 5/6/20 12:30 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:28 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>>
>> Only the tasks belonging to "current" pid namespace
>> are enumerated.
>>
>> For task/file target, the bpf program will have access to
>>    struct task_struct *task
>>    u32 fd
>>    struct file *file
>> where fd/file is an open file for the task.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
>> ---
> 
> I might be missing some subtleties with task refcounting for task_file
> iterator, asked few questions below...
> 
>>   kernel/bpf/Makefile    |   2 +-
>>   kernel/bpf/task_iter.c | 336 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 337 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>   create mode 100644 kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/Makefile b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
>> index b2b5eefc5254..37b2d8620153 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/Makefile
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>>   obj-y := core.o
>>   CFLAGS_core.o += $(call cc-disable-warning, override-init)
>>
>> -obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += syscall.o verifier.o inode.o helpers.o tnum.o bpf_iter.o map_iter.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += syscall.o verifier.o inode.o helpers.o tnum.o bpf_iter.o map_iter.o task_iter.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += hashtab.o arraymap.o percpu_freelist.o bpf_lru_list.o lpm_trie.o map_in_map.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += local_storage.o queue_stack_maps.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += disasm.o
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..1ca258f6e9f4
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,336 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>> +#include <linux/namei.h>
>> +#include <linux/pid_namespace.h>
>> +#include <linux/fs.h>
>> +#include <linux/fdtable.h>
>> +#include <linux/filter.h>
>> +
>> +struct bpf_iter_seq_task_common {
>> +       struct pid_namespace *ns;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct bpf_iter_seq_task_info {
>> +       struct bpf_iter_seq_task_common common;
> 
> you have comment below in init_seq_pidns() that common is supposed to
> be the very first field, but I think it's more important and
> appropriate here, so that whoever adds anything here knows that order
> of field is important.

I can move the comments here.

> 
>> +       struct task_struct *task;
>> +       u32 id;
>> +};
>> +
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +static int __task_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v, bool in_stop)
>> +{
>> +       struct bpf_iter_meta meta;
>> +       struct bpf_iter__task ctx;
>> +       struct bpf_prog *prog;
>> +       int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +       meta.seq = seq;
>> +       prog = bpf_iter_get_info(&meta, in_stop);
>> +       if (prog) {
> 
> 
> nit: `if (!prog) return 0;` here would reduce nesting level below
> 
>> +               meta.seq = seq;
>> +               ctx.meta = &meta;
>> +               ctx.task = v;
>> +               ret = bpf_iter_run_prog(prog, &ctx);
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       return 0;
> 
> return **ret**; ?

It should return "ret". In task_file show() code is similar but correct.
I can do early return with !prog too although we do not have
deep nesting level yet.

> 
>> +}
>> +
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +
>> +static struct file *task_file_seq_get_next(struct pid_namespace *ns, u32 *id,
>> +                                          int *fd, struct task_struct **task,
>> +                                          struct files_struct **fstruct)
>> +{
>> +       struct files_struct *files;
>> +       struct task_struct *tk;
>> +       u32 sid = *id;
>> +       int sfd;
>> +
>> +       /* If this function returns a non-NULL file object,
>> +        * it held a reference to the files_struct and file.
>> +        * Otherwise, it does not hold any reference.
>> +        */
>> +again:
>> +       if (*fstruct) {
>> +               files = *fstruct;
>> +               sfd = *fd;
>> +       } else {
>> +               tk = task_seq_get_next(ns, &sid);
>> +               if (!tk)
>> +                       return NULL;
>> +
>> +               files = get_files_struct(tk);
>> +               put_task_struct(tk);
> 
> task is put here, but is still used below.. is there some additional
> hidden refcounting involved?

Good question. I had an impression that we take a reference count
for task->files so task should not go away. But reading linux
code again, I do not have sufficient evidence to back my claim.
So I will reference count task as well, e.g., do not put_task_struct()
until all files are done here.

> 
>> +               if (!files) {
>> +                       sid = ++(*id);
>> +                       *fd = 0;
>> +                       goto again;
>> +               }
>> +               *fstruct = files;
>> +               *task = tk;
>> +               if (sid == *id) {
>> +                       sfd = *fd;
>> +               } else {
>> +                       *id = sid;
>> +                       sfd = 0;
>> +               }
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       rcu_read_lock();
>> +       for (; sfd < files_fdtable(files)->max_fds; sfd++) {
> 
> files_fdtable does rcu_dereference on each iteration, would it be
> better to just cache files_fdtable(files)->max_fds into local
> variable? It's unlikely that there will be many iterations, but
> still...

I borrowed code from fs/proc/fd.c. But I can certainly to avoid
repeated reading max_fds as suggested.

> 
>> +               struct file *f;
>> +
>> +               f = fcheck_files(files, sfd);
>> +               if (!f)
>> +                       continue;
>> +               *fd = sfd;
>> +               get_file(f);
>> +               rcu_read_unlock();
>> +               return f;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       /* the current task is done, go to the next task */
>> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>> +       put_files_struct(files);
>> +       *fstruct = NULL;
> 
> *task = NULL; for completeness?

if *fstruct == NULL, will try to get next task, so *task = NULL
is unnecessary, but I can add it, won't hurt and possibly make
it easy to understand.

> 
>> +       sid = ++(*id);
>> +       *fd = 0;
>> +       goto again;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void *task_file_seq_start(struct seq_file *seq, loff_t *pos)
>> +{
>> +       struct bpf_iter_seq_task_file_info *info = seq->private;
>> +       struct files_struct *files = NULL;
>> +       struct task_struct *task = NULL;
>> +       struct file *file;
>> +       u32 id = info->id;
>> +       int fd = info->fd;
>> +
>> +       file = task_file_seq_get_next(info->common.ns, &id, &fd, &task, &files);
>> +       if (!file) {
>> +               info->files = NULL;
> 
> what about info->task here?

info->files == NULL indicates the end of iteration, info->task will not 
be checked any more. But I guess, I can assign NULL to task as well to
avoid confusion.

> 
>> +               return NULL;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       ++*pos;
>> +       info->id = id;
>> +       info->fd = fd;
>> +       info->task = task;
>> +       info->files = files;
>> +
>> +       return file;
>> +}
>> +
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +
>> +struct bpf_iter__task_file {
>> +       __bpf_md_ptr(struct bpf_iter_meta *, meta);
>> +       __bpf_md_ptr(struct task_struct *, task);
>> +       u32 fd;
> 
> nit: sort of works by accident (due to all other field being 8-byte
> aligned pointers), shall we add __attribute__((aligned(8)))?

This is what I thought as well. It should work. But I think
add aligned(8) wont' hurt to expresss the intention.. Will add it.

> 
>> +       __bpf_md_ptr(struct file *, file);
>> +};
>> +
> 
> [...]
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists