lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] leaking_addresses: skip all /proc/PID except /proc/1
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 08:06:23AM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:45:09PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > When the system is idle it is likely that most files under /proc/PID
> > will be identical for various processes. Scanning _all_ the PIDs under
> > /proc is unnecessary and implies that we are thoroughly scanning /proc.
> > This is _not_ the case because there may be ways userspace can trigger
> > creation of /proc files that leak addresses but were not present during
> > a scan. For these two reasons we should exclude all PID directories
> > under /proc except '1/'
> >
> > Exclude all /proc/PID except /proc/1.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>
> > ---
> > scripts/leaking_addresses.pl | 11 +++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl b/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl
> > index 6e5bc57caeaa..fb40e2828f43 100755
> > --- a/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl
> > +++ b/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl
> > @@ -10,6 +10,14 @@
> > # Use --debug to output path before parsing, this is useful to find files that
> > # cause the script to choke.
> >
> > +#
> > +# When the system is idle it is likely that most files under /proc/PID will be
> > +# identical for various processes. Scanning _all_ the PIDs under /proc is
> > +# unnecessary and implies that we are thoroughly scanning /proc. This is _not_
> > +# the case because there may be ways userspace can trigger creation of /proc
> > +# files that leak addresses but were not present during a scan. For these two
> > +# reasons we exclude all PID directories under /proc except '1/'
> > +
> > use warnings;
> > use strict;
> > use POSIX;
> > @@ -472,6 +480,9 @@ sub walk
> > my $path = "$pwd/$file";
> > next if (-l $path);
> >
> > + # skip /proc/PID except /proc/1
> > + next if ($path =~ /\/proc\/(?:[2-9][0-9]*|1[0-9]+)/);
>
> Perhaps the intent of this is clearer?
>
> next if (($path =~ /^\/proc\/[0-9]+$/) &&
> ($path !~ /^\/proc\/1$/));

+1, works for me.

Cheers,

Tycho

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-01 23:47    [W:0.124 / U:0.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site