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;
Message-ID: <c99b49a3-263a-f0b4-de3c-3271153a5208@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:25:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.4.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] copy_process(): Move fd_install() out of sighand->siglock
 critical section
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220208163912.1084752-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <YgKziblMKsmHkP4f@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <bd83aca3-059f-92dd-e094-b27f51f9481a@redhat.com>
 <YgK/fdYWi0wWysci@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <874k59f2ad.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <874k59f2ad.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/8/22 16:59, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 01:51:35PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 2/8/22 13:16, Al Viro wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 11:39:12AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One way to solve this problem is to move the fd_install() call out of
>>>>> the sighand->siglock critical section.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before commit 6fd2fe494b17 ("copy_process(): don't use ksys_close()
>>>>> on cleanups"), the pidfd installation was done without holding both
>>>>> the task_list lock and the sighand->siglock. Obviously, holding these
>>>>> two locks are not really needed to protect the fd_install() call.
>>>>> So move the fd_install() call down to after the releases of both locks.
>>>> 	Umm... That assumes we can delay it that far.  IOW, that nothing
>>>> relies upon having pidfd observable in /proc/*/fd as soon as the child
>>>> becomes visible there in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> 	What warranties are expected from CLONE_PIDFD wrt observation of
>>>> child's descriptor table?
>>>>
>>> I think the fd_install() call can be moved after the release of
>>> sighand->siglock but before the release the tasklist_lock. Will that be good
>>> enough?
>> Looks like it should, but I'd rather hear from the CLONE_PIDFD authors first...
>> Christian, could you comment on that?
> The tasklist_lock and the siglock provide no protection against
> being looked up in proc.
>
> The proc filesystem looks up process information with things only
> protected by the rcu_read_lock().  Which means that the process
> will be visible through proc after "attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PID".
>
> The fd is being installed in the fdtable of the parent process,
> and the siglock and tasklist_lock are held to protect the child.
>
>
> Further fd_install is exposing the fd to userspace where it can be used
> by the process_madvise and the process_mrelease system calls, from
> anything that shares the fdtable of the parent thread.  Which means it
> needs to be guaranteed that kernel_clone will call wake_up_process
> before it is safe to call fd_install.
>
>
> So it appears to me that moving fd_install earlier fundamentally unsafe,
> and the locks are meaningless from an fd_install perspective.
>
> Which means it should be perfectly fine to move the fd_install outside
> of the tasklist_lock and the outside siglock.
>
>
> I don't see how we could support the fd appearing in the fdtable sooner
> which seems to make the question moot as to weather userspace in some
> odd corner case expects the fd to appear in the fdtable sooner.
>
> So I say move fd_install down with proc_fork_connector and friends.

Right. Keeping fd_install() inside of tasklist_lock may also be 
problematic as a read lock can be taken at interrupt context which may 
cause similar lockdep splat. So I am keep this patch as is.

Cheers,
Longman