Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 15:07:03 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        arnaldo.melo@gmail.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
        qiang.zhang@windriver.com, robdclark@chromium.org,
        christian@brauner.io, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, mingo@redhat.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, kafai@fb.com,
        songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
        kpsingh@kernel.org, dennis.dalessandro@cornelisnetworks.com,
        mike.marciniszyn@cornelisnetworks.com, dledford@redhat.com,
        jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, oliver.sang@intel.com, lkp@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/11] extend task comm from 16 to 24
Message-ID: <YX/0h7j/nDwoBA+J@alley>
References: <20211101060419.4682-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211101060419.4682-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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