[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YX/0h7j/nDwoBA+J@alley>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 15:07:03 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
arnaldo.melo@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, valentin.schneider@....com,
qiang.zhang@...driver.com, robdclark@...omium.org,
christian@...uner.io, dietmar.eggemann@....com, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com,
songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kpsingh@...nel.org, dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com,
mike.marciniszyn@...nelisnetworks.com, dledford@...hat.com,
jgg@...pe.ca, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oliver.sang@...el.com, lkp@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/11] extend task comm from 16 to 24
On Mon 2021-11-01 06:04:08, Yafang Shao wrote:
> There're many truncated kthreads in the kernel, which may make trouble
> for the user, for example, the user can't get detailed device
> information from the task comm.
>
> This patchset tries to improve this problem fundamentally by extending
> the task comm size from 16 to 24, which is a very simple way.
>
> In order to do that, we have to do some cleanups first.
>
> 1. Make the copy of task comm always safe no matter what the task
> comm size is. For example,
>
> Unsafe Safe
> strlcpy strscpy_pad
> strncpy strscpy_pad
> bpf_probe_read_kernel bpf_probe_read_kernel_str
> bpf_core_read_str
> bpf_get_current_comm
> perf_event__prepare_comm
> prctl(2)
>
> After this step, the comm size change won't make any trouble to the
> kernel or the in-tree tools for example perf, BPF programs.
>
> 2. Cleanup some old hard-coded 16
> Actually we don't need to convert all of them to TASK_COMM_LEN or
> TASK_COMM_LEN_16, what we really care about is if the convert can
> make the code more reasonable or easier to understand. For
> example, some in-tree tools read the comm from sched:sched_switch
> tracepoint, as it is derived from the kernel, we'd better make them
> consistent with the kernel.
The above changes make sense even if we do not extend comm[] array in
task_struct.
> 3. Extend the task comm size from 16 to 24
> task_struct is growing rather regularly by 8 bytes. This size change
> should be acceptable. We used to think about extending the size for
> CONFIG_BASE_FULL only, but that would be a burden for maintenance
> and introduce code complexity.
>
> 4. Print a warning if the kthread comm is still truncated.
>
> 5. What will happen to the out-of-tree tools after this change?
> If the tool get task comm through kernel API, for example prctl(2),
> bpf_get_current_comm() and etc, then it doesn't matter how large the
> user buffer is, because it will always get a string with a nul
> terminator. While if it gets the task comm through direct string copy,
> the user tool must make sure the copied string has a nul terminator
> itself. As TASK_COMM_LEN is not exposed to userspace, there's no
> reason that it must require a fixed-size task comm.
The amount of code that has to be updated is really high. I am pretty
sure that there are more potential buffer overflows left.
You did not commented on the concerns in the thread
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAADnVQKm0Ljj-w5PbkAu1ugLFnZRRPt-Vk-J7AhXxDD5xVompA@mail.gmail.com/
Several people suggested to use a more conservative approach. I mean
to keep comm[16] as is and add a new pointer to the full name. The buffer
for the long name might be dynamically allocated only when needed.
The pointer might be either in task_struct or struct kthread. It might
be used the same way as the full name stored by workqueue kthreads.
The advantage of the separate pointer:
+ would work for names longer than 32
+ will not open security holes in code
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists