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:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 00:01:53 -0800
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:     <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] bpf: increment and use correct thread
 iterator



On 12/3/20 7:43 PM, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> From: Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>

Could you explain in the commit log what problem this patch
tries to solve? What bad things could happen without this patch?

> 
> If unable to obtain the file structure for the current task,
> proceed to the next task number after the one returned from
> task_seq_get_next(), instead of the next task number from the
> original iterator.
This seems a correct change. The current code should still work
but it may do some redundant/unnecessary work in kernel.
This only happens when a task does not have any file,
no sure whether this is the culprit for the problem this
patch tries to address.

> 
> Use thread_group_leader() instead of comparing tgid vs pid, which
> might may be racy.

I see

static inline bool thread_group_leader(struct task_struct *p)
{
         return p->exit_signal >= 0;
}

I am not sure whether thread_group_leader(task) is equivalent
to task->tgid == task->pid or not. Any documentation or explanation?

Could you explain why task->tgid != task->pid in the original
code could be racy?

> 
> Only obtain the task reference count at the end of the RCU section
> instead of repeatedly obtaining/releasing it when iterathing though
> a thread group.

I think this is an optimization and not about the correctness.

> 
> Fixes: eaaacd23910f ("bpf: Add task and task/file iterator targets")
> Fixes: 203d7b054fc7 ("bpf: Avoid iterating duplicated files for task_file iterator")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
> ---
>   kernel/bpf/task_iter.c | 8 ++++----
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
> index 0458a40edf10..66a52fcf589a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
> @@ -33,17 +33,17 @@ static struct task_struct *task_seq_get_next(struct pid_namespace *ns,
>   	pid = find_ge_pid(*tid, ns);
>   	if (pid) {
>   		*tid = pid_nr_ns(pid, ns);
> -		task = get_pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> +		task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
>   		if (!task) {
>   			++*tid;
>   			goto retry;
> -		} else if (skip_if_dup_files && task->tgid != task->pid &&
> +		} else if (skip_if_dup_files && !thread_group_leader(task) &&
>   			   task->files == task->group_leader->files) {
> -			put_task_struct(task);
>   			task = NULL;
>   			++*tid;
>   			goto retry;
>   		}
> +		get_task_struct(task);
>   	}
>   	rcu_read_unlock();
>   
> @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ task_file_seq_get_next(struct bpf_iter_seq_task_file_info *info)
>   		curr_files = get_files_struct(curr_task);
>   		if (!curr_files) {
>   			put_task_struct(curr_task);
> -			curr_tid = ++(info->tid);
> +			curr_tid = curr_tid + 1;
>   			info->fd = 0;
>   			goto again;
>   		}
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists