Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 14:14:53 +0200
To:     Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bpf: Drop unprotected find_vpid() in favour of
 find_get_pid()
Message-ID: <YtlDPYQWDcORbP0o@krava>
References: <20220721111430.416305-1-lee@kernel.org>
 <Ytk+/npvvDGg9pBP@krava>
 <Ytk/jT+zyNZpafgn@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <Ytk/jT+zyNZpafgn@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 12:59:09PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 12:14:30PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > The documentation for find_pid() clearly states:

typo find_vpid

> > > 
> > >   "Must be called with the tasklist_lock or rcu_read_lock() held."
> > > 
> > > Presently we do neither.

just curious, did you see crash related to this or you just spot that

> > > 
> > > In an ideal world we would wrap the in-lined call to find_vpid() along
> > > with get_pid_task() in the suggested rcu_read_lock() and have done.
> > > However, looking at get_pid_task()'s internals, it already does that
> > > independently, so this would lead to deadlock.
> > 
> > hm, we can have nested rcu_read_lock calls, right?
> 
> I assumed not, but that might be an oversight on my part.
> 
> Would that be your preference?

seems simpler than calling get/put for ppid

jirka

> 
> > > Instead, we'll use find_get_pid() which searches for the vpid, then
> > > takes a reference to it preventing early free, all within the safety
> > > of rcu_read_lock().  Once we have our reference we can safely make use
> > > of it up until the point it is put.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
> > > Cc: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> > > Cc: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
> > > Cc: Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
> > > Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
> > > Fixes: 41bdc4b40ed6f ("bpf: introduce bpf subcommand BPF_TASK_FD_QUERY")
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 5 ++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > > index 83c7136c5788d..c20cff30581c4 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > > @@ -4385,6 +4385,7 @@ static int bpf_task_fd_query(const union bpf_attr *attr,
> > >  	const struct perf_event *event;
> > >  	struct task_struct *task;
> > >  	struct file *file;
> > > +	struct pid *ppid;
> > >  	int err;
> > >  
> > >  	if (CHECK_ATTR(BPF_TASK_FD_QUERY))
> > > @@ -4396,7 +4397,9 @@ static int bpf_task_fd_query(const union bpf_attr *attr,
> > >  	if (attr->task_fd_query.flags != 0)
> > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > >  
> > > -	task = get_pid_task(find_vpid(pid), PIDTYPE_PID);
> > > +	ppid = find_get_pid(pid);
> > > +	task = get_pid_task(ppid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > > +	put_pid(ppid);
> > >  	if (!task)
> > >  		return -ENOENT;
> > >  
> 
> -- 
> Lee Jones [李琼斯]