lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next] fs: Fix memory leaks in do_renameat2() error paths
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:

> On 11/2/20 1:31 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/2/20 1:12 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 11/2/20 12:27 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/20 4:22 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 02:33:11PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/30/20 12:49 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:46:26PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See other reply, it's being posted soon, just haven't gotten there yet
>>>>>>>>>> and it wasn't ready.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a prep patch so we can call do_renameat2 and pass in a filename
>>>>>>>>>> instead. The intent is not to have any functional changes in that prep
>>>>>>>>>> patch. But once we can pass in filenames instead of user pointers, it's
>>>>>>>>>> usable from io_uring.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do realize that pathname resolution is *NOT* offloadable to helper
>>>>>>>>> threads, I hope...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How so? If we have all the necessary context assigned, what's preventing
>>>>>>>> it from working?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Semantics of /proc/self/..., for starters (and things like /proc/mounts, etc.
>>>>>>> *do* pass through that, /dev/stdin included)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't we just need ->thread_pid for that to work?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. You need ->signal.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need ->signal->pids[PIDTYPE_TGID]. It is only for /proc/thread-self
>>>>> that ->thread_pid is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even more so than ->thread_pid, it is a kernel invariant that ->signal
>>>>> does not change.
>>>>
>>>> I don't care about the pid itself, my suggestion was to assign ->thread_pid
>>>> over the lookup operation to ensure that /proc/self/ worked the way that
>>>> you'd expect.
>>>
>>> I understand that.
>>>
>>> However /proc/self/ refers to the current process not to the current
>>> thread. So ->thread_pid is not what you need to assign to make that
>>> happen. What the code looks at is: ->signal->pids[PIDTYPE_TGID].
>>>
>>> It will definitely break invariants to assign to ->signal.
>>>
>>> Currently only exchange_tids assigns ->thread_pid and it is nasty. It
>>> results in code that potentially results in infinite loops in
>>> kernel/signal.c
>>>
>>> To my knowledge nothing assigns ->signal->pids[PIDTYPE_TGID]. At best
>>> it might work but I expect the it would completely confuse something in
>>> the pid to task or pid to process mappings. Which is to say even if it
>>> does work it would be an extremely fragile solution.
>>
>> Thanks Eric, that's useful. Sounds to me like we're better off, at least
>> for now, to just expressly forbid async lookup of /proc/self/. Which
>> isn't really the end of the world as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Alternatively, we just teach task_pid_ptr() where to look for an
> alternate, if current->flags & PF_IO_WORKER is true. Then we don't have
> to assign anything that's visible in task_struct, and in fact the async
> worker can retain this stuff on the stack. As all requests are killed
> before a task is allowed to exit, that should be safe.

That seems assumes task_pid_ptr is always called on current.

When you are looking at the task through the proc filesystem you want
things like /proc/<pid>/stat and /proc/<pid>/status to be able to
display the pids without problem. More than that it is desirable that
readdir does not get the view for the PF_IO_WORKER.

> diff --git a/kernel/pid.c b/kernel/pid.c
> index 74ddbff1a6ba..5fd421a4864c 100644
> --- a/kernel/pid.c
> +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> #include <linux/sched/signal.h>
> #include <linux/sched/task.h>
> #include <linux/idr.h>
> +#include <linux/io_uring.h>
> #include <net/sock.h>
> #include <uapi/linux/pidfd.h>
>
> @@ -320,6 +321,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(find_vpid);
>
> static struct pid **task_pid_ptr(struct task_struct *task, enum pid_type type)
> {
> + if ((task->flags & PF_IO_WORKER) && task->io_uring) {
> + return (type == PIDTYPE_PID) ?
> + &task->io_uring->thread_pid :
> + &task->io_uring->pids[type];
> + }
> +
> return (type == PIDTYPE_PID) ?
> &task->thread_pid :
> &task->signal->pids[type];

The only thing I can think of that might work convincingly is to split
get_current() into two functions get_context() and get_task(). Maybe
accessed as current_context and current_task.

With get_context() returning just a pointer to the fields that are safe
to use in io_uring, and get_task returning the other fields.

With exit and exec invaliding the pending work on the contexts it should
be safe to just return a pointer to the context that invoked io_uring.
Data in the context would either need to be read-only or be modified
and read in a multi-thread safe way.

The rest of the data in the task_struct by default could be assume it is
only modified by the task.

That would give type-safety and something avoids playing whack-a-mole
with every new piece of context that userspace accesses.

Eric


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-03 15:47    [W:0.063 / U:6.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site