| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 14:20:10 -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 1:51 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:24 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> All threads within the process share files table. So some threads
> might exit, but files will stay, which is why task_struct and
> files_struct have separate refcounting, and having refcount on files
> doesn't guarantee any particular task will stay alive for long enough.
> So I think we need to refcount both files and task in this case.
> Reading source code of copy_files() in kernel/fork.c (CLONE_FILES
> flags just bumps refcnt on old process' files_struct), seems to
> confirm this as well.
Just checked the code. It does look like files are shared among
threads (tasks). So yes, in this case, reference counting to
both task and file_table needed.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> + 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();
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists