Messages in this thread |  | | From | Jann Horn <> | Date | Tue, 28 Jan 2020 20:09:17 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cred: Use RCU primitives to access RCU pointers |
| |
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:04 PM Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:30:19AM +0100, Jann Horn wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:28 AM Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com> wrote: > > > task_struct.cred and task_struct.real_cred are annotated by __rcu, > > > > task_struct.cred doesn't actually have RCU semantics though, see > > commit d7852fbd0f0423937fa287a598bfde188bb68c22. For task_struct.cred, > > it would probably be more correct to remove the __rcu annotation? > > > > Hi Jann, > > I went through the commit you mentioned. If I understand it correctly, > ->cred was not being accessed concurrently (via RCU), hence, a non_rcu > flag was introduced, which determined if the clean-up should wait for > RCU grace-periods or not. And since, the changes were 'thread local' > there was no need to wait for an entire RCU GP to elapse.
Yeah.
> The commit too, as you said, mentions the removal of __rcu annotation. > However, simply removing the annotation won't work, as there are quite a > few instances where RCU primitives are used. Even get_current_cred() > uses RCU APIs to get a reference to ->cred.
Luckily, there aren't too many places that directly access ->cred, since luckily there are helper functions like get_current_cred() that will do it for you. Grepping through the kernel, I see:
Places that need adjustment:
include/linux/cred.h: rcu_dereference_protected(current->cred, 1) kernel/auditsc.c: * the only situations where tsk->cred may be accessed without an rcu read lock. kernel/auditsc.c: cred = rcu_dereference_check(tsk->cred, tsk == current || task_creation); kernel/cred.c: rcu_assign_pointer(task->cred, new); kernel/cred.c: rcu_assign_pointer(current->cred, new); kernel/cred.c: rcu_assign_pointer(current->cred, old);
Places that already don't use RCU accessors:
drivers/virt/vboxguest/vboxguest_linux.c: if (from_kuid(current_user_ns(), current->cred->uid) == 0) kernel/cred.c: BUG_ON(cred == current->cred); kernel/cred.c: kdebug("exit_creds(%u,%p,%p,{%d,%d})", tsk->pid, tsk->real_cred, tsk->cred, kernel/cred.c: atomic_read(&tsk->cred->usage), kernel/cred.c: read_cred_subscribers(tsk->cred)); kernel/cred.c: cred = (struct cred *) tsk->cred; kernel/cred.c: tsk->cred = NULL; kernel/cred.c: old = task->cred; kernel/cred.c: !p->cred->thread_keyring && kernel/cred.c: p->real_cred = get_cred(p->cred); kernel/cred.c: get_cred(p->cred); kernel/cred.c: alter_cred_subscribers(p->cred, 2); kernel/cred.c: p->cred, atomic_read(&p->cred->usage), kernel/cred.c: read_cred_subscribers(p->cred)); kernel/cred.c: atomic_inc(&p->cred->user->processes); kernel/cred.c: p->cred = p->real_cred = get_cred(new); kernel/cred.c: BUG_ON(task->cred != old); kernel/cred.c: const struct cred *old = current->cred; kernel/cred.c: * '->cred' pointer, not the '->real_cred' pointer that is kernel/cred.c: const struct cred *override = current->cred; kernel/cred.c: cred == tsk->cred ? "[eff]" : ""); kernel/cred.c: if (tsk->cred == tsk->real_cred) { kernel/cred.c: if (unlikely(read_cred_subscribers(tsk->cred) < 2 || kernel/cred.c: creds_are_invalid(tsk->cred))) kernel/cred.c: read_cred_subscribers(tsk->cred) < 1 || kernel/cred.c: creds_are_invalid(tsk->cred))) kernel/cred.c: if (tsk->cred != tsk->real_cred) kernel/cred.c: dump_invalid_creds(tsk->cred, "Effective", tsk); kernel/cred.c: tsk->real_cred, tsk->cred, kernel/cred.c: atomic_read(&tsk->cred->usage), kernel/cred.c: read_cred_subscribers(tsk->cred)); kernel/fork.c: atomic_dec(&p->cred->user->processes); security/security.c: lsm_early_cred((struct cred *) current->cred); security/smack/smack_lsm.c: struct cred *cred = (struct cred *) current->cred; security/tomoyo/common.c: (!uid_eq(task->cred->uid, GLOBAL_ROOT_UID) || security/tomoyo/common.c: !uid_eq(task->cred->euid, GLOBAL_ROOT_UID)))
Places that don't use RCU and are broken:
security/smack/smack_lsm.c: struct smack_known *tkp = smk_of_task(smack_cred(tsk->cred));
So actually, the number of places that already don't use RCU accessors is much higher than the number of places that use them.
> So, currently, maybe we > should continue to use RCU APIs and leave the __rcu annotation in? > (Until someone who takes it on himself to remove __rcu annotation and > fix all the instances). Does that sound good? Or do you want me to > remove __rcu annotation and get the process started?
I don't think it's a good idea to add more uses of RCU APIs for ->cred; you shouldn't "fix" warnings by making the code more wrong.
If you want to fix this, I think it would be relatively easy to fix this properly - as far as I can tell, there are only seven places that you'll have to change, although you may have to split it up into three patches.
|  |