* Re: [PATCH RFT v9 4/8] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
From: Mark Brown @ 2024-10-01 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Brauner
Cc: Edgecombe, Rick P, Florian Weimer, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
shuah@kernel.org, Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, debug@rivosinc.com, mgorman@suse.de,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, kees@kernel.org,
will@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, jannh@google.com,
peterz@infradead.org, yury.khrustalev@arm.com, bp@alien8.de,
wilco.dijkstra@arm.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
bsegall@google.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20241001-atheismus-stetig-4f6f3001715c@brauner>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1748 bytes --]
On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 05:12:38PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 03:21:59PM GMT, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > Did you catch that a token can be at a different offsets location on the stack
> > depending on args passed to map_shadow_stack? So userspace will need something
> > like the code above, but that adjusts the 'shadow_stack_size' such that the
> > kernel looks for the token in the right place. It will be even weirder if
> > someone uses clone3 to switch to a stack that has already been used, and pivoted
> > off of, such that a token was left in the middle of the stack. In that case
> > userspace would have to come up with args disconnected from the actual size of
> > the shadow stack such that the kernel would be cajoled into looking for the
> > token in the right place.
> >
> > A shadow stack size is more symmetric on the surface, but I'm not sure it will
> > be easier for userspace to handle. So I think we should just have a pointer to
> > the token. But it will be a usable implementation either way.
My suspicion would be that if we're doing the pivot to a previously used
shadow stack we'd also be pivoting the regular stack along with it which
would face similar issues with having an unusual method for specifying
the stack top so I don't know how much we're really winning. Like we
both keep saying either of the interfaces works though, it's just a
taste question with both having downsides.
> Maybe it's best to let glibc folks decide what is better/more ergonomic for them.
The relevant people are on the thread I think.
I've rebased onto v6.12-rc1, assuming I don't notice anything horrible
in testing I'll post that with the ABI unchanged for now.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH RFT v9 4/8] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
From: Christian Brauner @ 2024-10-01 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Edgecombe, Rick P, Florian Weimer
Cc: broonie@kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, shuah@kernel.org,
Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
debug@rivosinc.com, mgorman@suse.de, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, fweimer@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, kees@kernel.org, will@kernel.org,
hpa@zytor.com, jannh@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
yury.khrustalev@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, wilco.dijkstra@arm.com,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, bsegall@google.com,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <727524e9109022632250ab0485f5ecc1c1900092.camel@intel.com>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 03:21:59PM GMT, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 10:50 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > The legacy clone system call had required userspace to know in which
> > direction the stack was growing and then pass down the stack pointer
> > appropriately (e.g., parisc grows upwards).
> >
> > And in fact, the old clone() system call did take an additional
> > stack_size argument on specific architectures. For example, on
> > microblaze.
> >
> > Also, when clone3() was done we still had ia64 in the tree which had a
> > separate clone2() system call that also required a stack_size argument.
> >
> > So userspace ended up with code like this or worse:
> >
> > #define __STACK_SIZE (8 * 1024 * 1024)
> > pid_t sys_clone(int (*fn)(void *), void *arg, int flags, int *pidfd)
> > {
> > pid_t ret;
> > void *stack;
> >
> > stack = malloc(__STACK_SIZE);
> > if (!stack)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > #ifdef __ia64__
> > ret = __clone2(fn, stack, __STACK_SIZE, flags | SIGCHLD, arg, pidfd);
> > #elif defined(__parisc__) /* stack grows up */
> > ret = clone(fn, stack, flags | SIGCHLD, arg, pidfd);
> > #else
> > ret = clone(fn, stack + __STACK_SIZE, flags | SIGCHLD, arg, pidfd);
> > #endif
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > So we talked to the glibc folks which preferred the kernel to do all
> > this nonsense for them as it has that knowledge.
>
> Thanks for the info!
>
> >
> > My preference is to keep the api consistent and require a stack_size for
> > shadow stacks as well.
>
> Did you catch that a token can be at a different offsets location on the stack
> depending on args passed to map_shadow_stack? So userspace will need something
> like the code above, but that adjusts the 'shadow_stack_size' such that the
> kernel looks for the token in the right place. It will be even weirder if
> someone uses clone3 to switch to a stack that has already been used, and pivoted
> off of, such that a token was left in the middle of the stack. In that case
> userspace would have to come up with args disconnected from the actual size of
> the shadow stack such that the kernel would be cajoled into looking for the
> token in the right place.
>
> A shadow stack size is more symmetric on the surface, but I'm not sure it will
> be easier for userspace to handle. So I think we should just have a pointer to
> the token. But it will be a usable implementation either way.
Maybe it's best to let glibc folks decide what is better/more ergonomic for them.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce PIDFD_SELF
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-10-01 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Brauner
Cc: Oleg Nesterov, Aleksa Sarai, Florian Weimer, Christian Brauner,
Shuah Khan, Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka,
pedro.falcato, linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel,
linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <20241001-stapfen-darfst-5fe2a8b2c6ec@brauner>
On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 12:21:32PM GMT, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 03:32:25PM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:21:23PM GMT, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
[snip]
> > > Sorry to bike-shed, but to match /proc/self and /proc/thread-self, maybe
> > > they should be called PIDFD_SELF (for tgid) and PIDFD_THREAD_SELF (for
> > > current's tid)? In principle I guess users might use PIDFD_SELF by
> > > accident but if we mirror the naming with /proc/{,thread-}self that
> > > might not be that big of an issue?
> >
> > Lol, you know I wasn't even aware /proc/thread-self existed...
>
> Wait until you learn that /proc/$TID thread entries exist but aren't
> shown when you do ls -al /proc, only when you explicitly access them.
My God... You're right, that's crazy... :)
>
> >
> > Yeah, that actually makes sense and is consistent, though obviously the
> > concern is people will reflexively use PIDFD_SELF and end up with
> > potentially confusing results.
> >
> > I will obviously be doing a manpage patch for this so we can spell it out
> > there very clearly and also in the header - so I'd actually lean towards
> > doing this myself.
> >
> > Christian, Florian? Thoughts?
>
> I think adding both would be potentially useful. How about:
>
> #define PIDFD_SELF -100
> #define PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP -200
Sure, makes sense to add both.
>
> This will make PIDFD_SELF mean current and PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP mean
> current->pid_links[PIDTYPE_TGID]. I don't think we need to or should
> mirror procfs in any way. pidfds are intended to be usable without
> procfs at all.
Yeah, I think it's important to ensure the _default_ choice, so in this
case PIDFD_SELF clearly, is one that will be least surprising.
The proc thing is sort of pleasing from an aesthetic point of view, but if
you followed it you'd have to _clearly_ document PIDFD_THREAD_SELF as the
default.
Happy to go along with this. PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP is also clearer as it is
distinct from PIDFD_SELF (doesn't reference 'self' at all).
>
> I want to leave one comment on a bit of quirkiness in the api when we
> add this. I don't consider it a big deal but it should be pointed out.
>
> It can be useful to allow PIDFD_SELF or PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP to refer to
> the calling thread even for pidfd_open() to avoid an additional getpid()
> system call:
>
> (1) pidfd_open(PIDFD_SELF, PIDFD_THREAD)
> (2) pidfd_open(PIDFD_SELF, 0)
>
Hm, this is a bit weird, as these are pid_t's and PIDFD_SELF and
PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP are otherwise (pid)fd's.
Being dummy values sort of allows us to put them into service here also,
but it is just weird, we pass what is usually a pidfd to receive a pidfd,
only this time it's an actually concrete one?
I'm not sure I like this, even though as you say it avoids a getpid().
If we did this I'd prefer it to be a separate name, even if it has the same
numeric value (I guess we also might want to check for anything that uses a
negative pid_t to refer to an error or something else too).
Perhaps PID_SELF and PID_THREAD_GROUP?
> So if we allow this (Should we allow it?) then (1) is just redundant but
> whathever. But (2) is at least worth discussing: Should we reject (2) on
> the grounds of contradictory requests or allow it and document that it's
> equivalent to pidfd_open(getpid(), PIDFD_THREAD)? It feels like the
> latter would be ok.
>
> Similar for pidfd_send_signal():
>
> // redundant but ok:
> (1) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_SELF, PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD)
>
> // redundant but ok:
> (2) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP, PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD_GROUP)
>
> // weird way to spell pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP, 0)
> (3) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_SELF, PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD_GROUP)
>
> // weird way to spell pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_SELF, 0)
> (4) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP, PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD)
>
> I think all of this is ok but does anyone else have a strong opinion?
I think it's fine to allow all 4 and we should get this behaviour by
default (if we have no flags we use the f_flags as a hint, which will be
set correctly).
I think people might find contradictory ones, i.e. 3 and 4, strange, but it
makes sense for the flags to override the pidfd (as they would for a
non-sentinel pidfd) and it makes everything consistent vs. if you were not
using a sentinel value.
So yes I think that's fine.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce PIDFD_SELF
From: Christian Brauner @ 2024-10-01 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Stoakes
Cc: Oleg Nesterov, Aleksa Sarai, Florian Weimer, Christian Brauner,
Shuah Khan, Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka,
pedro.falcato, linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel,
linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <8b1b376b-3c4f-409a-b8e4-8faf3efecdc8@lucifer.local>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 03:32:25PM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:21:23PM GMT, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > On 2024-09-30, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 02:34:33PM GMT, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:39:49AM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:33:18PM GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > > > * Lorenzo Stoakes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you wish to utilise a pidfd interface to refer to the current process
> > > > > > > (from the point of view of userland - from the kernel point of view - the
> > > > > > > thread group leader), it is rather cumbersome, requiring something like:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > close(pidfd);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or the equivalent call opening /proc/self. It is more convenient to use a
> > > > > > > sentinel value to indicate to an interface that accepts a pidfd that we
> > > > > > > simply wish to refer to the current process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The descriptor will refer to the current thread, not process, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > No it refers to the current process (i.e. thread group leader from kernel
> > > > > perspective). Unless you specify PIDFD_THREAD, this is the same if you did the above.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The distinction matters for pidfd_getfd if a process contains multiple
> > > > > > threads with different file descriptor tables, and probably for
> > > > > > pidfd_send_signal as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean if you did a strange set of flags to clone()? Otherwise these are
> > > > > shared right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, we are explicitly looking at process not thread from userland
> > > > > perspective. A PIDFD_SELF_THREAD might be possible, but this series doesn't try
> > > > > to implement that.
> > > >
> > > > Florian raises a good point. Currently we have:
> > > >
> > > > (1) int pidfd_tgid = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> > > > (2) int pidfd_thread = pidfd_open(getpid(), PIDFD_THREAD);
> > > >
> > > > and this instructs:
> > > >
> > > > pidfd_send_signal()
> > > > pidfd_getfd()
> > > >
> > > > to do different things. For pidfd_send_signal() it's whether the
> > > > operation has thread-group scope or thread-scope for pidfd_send_signal()
> > > > and for pidfd_getfd() it determines the fdtable to use.
> > > >
> > > > The thing is that if you pass:
> > > >
> > > > pidfd_getfd(PDIFD_SELF)
> > > >
> > > > and you have:
> > > >
> > > > TGID
> > > >
> > > > T1 {
> > > > clone(CLONE_THREAD)
> > > > unshare(CLONE_FILES)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > T2 {
> > > > clone(CLONE_THREAD)
> > > > unshare(CLONE_FILES)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > You have 3 threads in the same thread-group that all have distinct file
> > > > descriptor tables from each other.
> > > >
> > > > So if T1 did:
> > > >
> > > > pidfd_getfd(PIDFD_SELF, ...)
> > > >
> > > > and we mirror the PIDTYPE_TGID behavior then T1 will very likely expect
> > > > to get the fd from its file descriptor table. IOW, its reasonable to
> > > > expect that T1 is interested in their very own resource, not someone
> > > > else's even if it is the thread-group leader.
> > > >
> > > > But what T1 will get in reality is an fd from TGID's file descriptor
> > > > table (and similar for T2).
> > > >
> > > > Iirc, yes that confusion exists already with /proc/self. But the
> > > > question is whether we should add the same confusion to the pidfd api or
> > > > whether we make PIDFD_SELF actually mean PIDTYPE_PID aka the actual
> > > > calling thread.
> > > >
> > > > My thinking is that if you have the reasonable suspicion that you're
> > > > multi-threaded and that you're interested in the thread-group resource
> > > > then you should be using:
> > > >
> > > > int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
> > > >
> > > > and hand that thread-group leader pidfd around since you're interested
> > > > in another thread. But if you're really just interested in your own
> > > > resource then pidfd_open(getpid(), 0) makes no sense and you would want
> > > > PIDFD_SELF.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > I mean from my perspective, my aim is to get current->mm for
> > > process_madvise() so both work for me :) however you both raise a very good
> > > point here (sorry Florian, perhaps I was a little too dismissive as to your
> > > point, you're absolutely right).
> > >
> > > My intent was for PIDFD_SELF to simply mirror the pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
> > > behaviour, but you and Florian make a strong case that you'd _probably_
> > > find this very confusing had you unshared in this fashion.
> > >
> > > I mean in general this confusion already exists, and is for what
> > > PIDFD_THREAD was created, but I suspect ideally if you could go back you
> > > might actually do this by default Christian + let the TGL behaviour be the
> > > optional thing?
> > >
> > > For most users this will not be an issue, but for those they'd get the same
> > > result whichever they used, but yes actually I think you're both right -
> > > PIDFD_SELF should in effect imply PIDFD_THREAD.
> >
> > Funnily enough we ran into issues with this when running Go code in runc
> > that did precisely this -- /proc/self gave you the wrong fd table in
> > very specific circumstances that were annoying to debug. For languages
> > with green-threading you can't turn off (like Go) these kinds of issues
> > pop up surprisingly often.
>
> Yeah, damn, useful insight that such things do happen in the wild.
>
> >
> > > We can adjust the pidfd_send_signal() call to infer the correct scope
> > > (actually nicely we can do that without any change there, by having
> > > __pidfd_get_pid() set f_flags accordingly).
> > >
> > > So TL;DR: I agree, I will respin with PIDFD_SELF referring to the thread.
> > >
> > > My question in return here then is - should we introduce PIDFD_SELF_PROCESS
> > > also (do advise if you feel this naming isn't quite right) - to provide
> > > thread group leader behaviour?
> >
> > Sorry to bike-shed, but to match /proc/self and /proc/thread-self, maybe
> > they should be called PIDFD_SELF (for tgid) and PIDFD_THREAD_SELF (for
> > current's tid)? In principle I guess users might use PIDFD_SELF by
> > accident but if we mirror the naming with /proc/{,thread-}self that
> > might not be that big of an issue?
>
> Lol, you know I wasn't even aware /proc/thread-self existed...
Wait until you learn that /proc/$TID thread entries exist but aren't
shown when you do ls -al /proc, only when you explicitly access them.
>
> Yeah, that actually makes sense and is consistent, though obviously the
> concern is people will reflexively use PIDFD_SELF and end up with
> potentially confusing results.
>
> I will obviously be doing a manpage patch for this so we can spell it out
> there very clearly and also in the header - so I'd actually lean towards
> doing this myself.
>
> Christian, Florian? Thoughts?
I think adding both would be potentially useful. How about:
#define PIDFD_SELF -100
#define PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP -200
This will make PIDFD_SELF mean current and PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP mean
current->pid_links[PIDTYPE_TGID]. I don't think we need to or should
mirror procfs in any way. pidfds are intended to be usable without
procfs at all.
I want to leave one comment on a bit of quirkiness in the api when we
add this. I don't consider it a big deal but it should be pointed out.
It can be useful to allow PIDFD_SELF or PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP to refer to
the calling thread even for pidfd_open() to avoid an additional getpid()
system call:
(1) pidfd_open(PIDFD_SELF, PIDFD_THREAD)
(2) pidfd_open(PIDFD_SELF, 0)
So if we allow this (Should we allow it?) then (1) is just redundant but
whathever. But (2) is at least worth discussing: Should we reject (2) on
the grounds of contradictory requests or allow it and document that it's
equivalent to pidfd_open(getpid(), PIDFD_THREAD)? It feels like the
latter would be ok.
Similar for pidfd_send_signal():
// redundant but ok:
(1) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_SELF, PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD)
// redundant but ok:
(2) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP, PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD_GROUP)
// weird way to spell pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP, 0)
(3) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_SELF, PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD_GROUP)
// weird way to spell pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_SELF, 0)
(4) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP, PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD)
I think all of this is ok but does anyone else have a strong opinion?
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce PIDFD_SELF
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-30 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aleksa Sarai
Cc: Christian Brauner, Florian Weimer, Christian Brauner, Shuah Khan,
Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka,
pedro.falcato, linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel,
linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <20240930.141721-salted.birth.growing.forges-5Z29YNO700C@cyphar.com>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:21:23PM GMT, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2024-09-30, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 02:34:33PM GMT, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:39:49AM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:33:18PM GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > > * Lorenzo Stoakes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you wish to utilise a pidfd interface to refer to the current process
> > > > > > (from the point of view of userland - from the kernel point of view - the
> > > > > > thread group leader), it is rather cumbersome, requiring something like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > close(pidfd);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or the equivalent call opening /proc/self. It is more convenient to use a
> > > > > > sentinel value to indicate to an interface that accepts a pidfd that we
> > > > > > simply wish to refer to the current process.
> > > > >
> > > > > The descriptor will refer to the current thread, not process, right?
> > > >
> > > > No it refers to the current process (i.e. thread group leader from kernel
> > > > perspective). Unless you specify PIDFD_THREAD, this is the same if you did the above.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The distinction matters for pidfd_getfd if a process contains multiple
> > > > > threads with different file descriptor tables, and probably for
> > > > > pidfd_send_signal as well.
> > > >
> > > > You mean if you did a strange set of flags to clone()? Otherwise these are
> > > > shared right?
> > > >
> > > > Again, we are explicitly looking at process not thread from userland
> > > > perspective. A PIDFD_SELF_THREAD might be possible, but this series doesn't try
> > > > to implement that.
> > >
> > > Florian raises a good point. Currently we have:
> > >
> > > (1) int pidfd_tgid = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> > > (2) int pidfd_thread = pidfd_open(getpid(), PIDFD_THREAD);
> > >
> > > and this instructs:
> > >
> > > pidfd_send_signal()
> > > pidfd_getfd()
> > >
> > > to do different things. For pidfd_send_signal() it's whether the
> > > operation has thread-group scope or thread-scope for pidfd_send_signal()
> > > and for pidfd_getfd() it determines the fdtable to use.
> > >
> > > The thing is that if you pass:
> > >
> > > pidfd_getfd(PDIFD_SELF)
> > >
> > > and you have:
> > >
> > > TGID
> > >
> > > T1 {
> > > clone(CLONE_THREAD)
> > > unshare(CLONE_FILES)
> > > }
> > >
> > > T2 {
> > > clone(CLONE_THREAD)
> > > unshare(CLONE_FILES)
> > > }
> > >
> > > You have 3 threads in the same thread-group that all have distinct file
> > > descriptor tables from each other.
> > >
> > > So if T1 did:
> > >
> > > pidfd_getfd(PIDFD_SELF, ...)
> > >
> > > and we mirror the PIDTYPE_TGID behavior then T1 will very likely expect
> > > to get the fd from its file descriptor table. IOW, its reasonable to
> > > expect that T1 is interested in their very own resource, not someone
> > > else's even if it is the thread-group leader.
> > >
> > > But what T1 will get in reality is an fd from TGID's file descriptor
> > > table (and similar for T2).
> > >
> > > Iirc, yes that confusion exists already with /proc/self. But the
> > > question is whether we should add the same confusion to the pidfd api or
> > > whether we make PIDFD_SELF actually mean PIDTYPE_PID aka the actual
> > > calling thread.
> > >
> > > My thinking is that if you have the reasonable suspicion that you're
> > > multi-threaded and that you're interested in the thread-group resource
> > > then you should be using:
> > >
> > > int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
> > >
> > > and hand that thread-group leader pidfd around since you're interested
> > > in another thread. But if you're really just interested in your own
> > > resource then pidfd_open(getpid(), 0) makes no sense and you would want
> > > PIDFD_SELF.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > I mean from my perspective, my aim is to get current->mm for
> > process_madvise() so both work for me :) however you both raise a very good
> > point here (sorry Florian, perhaps I was a little too dismissive as to your
> > point, you're absolutely right).
> >
> > My intent was for PIDFD_SELF to simply mirror the pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
> > behaviour, but you and Florian make a strong case that you'd _probably_
> > find this very confusing had you unshared in this fashion.
> >
> > I mean in general this confusion already exists, and is for what
> > PIDFD_THREAD was created, but I suspect ideally if you could go back you
> > might actually do this by default Christian + let the TGL behaviour be the
> > optional thing?
> >
> > For most users this will not be an issue, but for those they'd get the same
> > result whichever they used, but yes actually I think you're both right -
> > PIDFD_SELF should in effect imply PIDFD_THREAD.
>
> Funnily enough we ran into issues with this when running Go code in runc
> that did precisely this -- /proc/self gave you the wrong fd table in
> very specific circumstances that were annoying to debug. For languages
> with green-threading you can't turn off (like Go) these kinds of issues
> pop up surprisingly often.
Yeah, damn, useful insight that such things do happen in the wild.
>
> > We can adjust the pidfd_send_signal() call to infer the correct scope
> > (actually nicely we can do that without any change there, by having
> > __pidfd_get_pid() set f_flags accordingly).
> >
> > So TL;DR: I agree, I will respin with PIDFD_SELF referring to the thread.
> >
> > My question in return here then is - should we introduce PIDFD_SELF_PROCESS
> > also (do advise if you feel this naming isn't quite right) - to provide
> > thread group leader behaviour?
>
> Sorry to bike-shed, but to match /proc/self and /proc/thread-self, maybe
> they should be called PIDFD_SELF (for tgid) and PIDFD_THREAD_SELF (for
> current's tid)? In principle I guess users might use PIDFD_SELF by
> accident but if we mirror the naming with /proc/{,thread-}self that
> might not be that big of an issue?
Lol, you know I wasn't even aware /proc/thread-self existed...
Yeah, that actually makes sense and is consistent, though obviously the
concern is people will reflexively use PIDFD_SELF and end up with
potentially confusing results.
I will obviously be doing a manpage patch for this so we can spell it out
there very clearly and also in the header - so I'd actually lean towards
doing this myself.
Christian, Florian? Thoughts?
Thanks!
>
> Just a thought.
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> --
> Aleksa Sarai
> Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
> SUSE Linux GmbH
> <https://www.cyphar.com/>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce PIDFD_SELF
From: Aleksa Sarai @ 2024-09-30 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Stoakes
Cc: Christian Brauner, Florian Weimer, Christian Brauner, Shuah Khan,
Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka,
pedro.falcato, linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel,
linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <cdd24e6d-4300-4afe-b2ef-1b8ee528bccc@lucifer.local>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5958 bytes --]
On 2024-09-30, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 02:34:33PM GMT, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:39:49AM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:33:18PM GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > * Lorenzo Stoakes:
> > > >
> > > > > If you wish to utilise a pidfd interface to refer to the current process
> > > > > (from the point of view of userland - from the kernel point of view - the
> > > > > thread group leader), it is rather cumbersome, requiring something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > close(pidfd);
> > > > >
> > > > > Or the equivalent call opening /proc/self. It is more convenient to use a
> > > > > sentinel value to indicate to an interface that accepts a pidfd that we
> > > > > simply wish to refer to the current process.
> > > >
> > > > The descriptor will refer to the current thread, not process, right?
> > >
> > > No it refers to the current process (i.e. thread group leader from kernel
> > > perspective). Unless you specify PIDFD_THREAD, this is the same if you did the above.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The distinction matters for pidfd_getfd if a process contains multiple
> > > > threads with different file descriptor tables, and probably for
> > > > pidfd_send_signal as well.
> > >
> > > You mean if you did a strange set of flags to clone()? Otherwise these are
> > > shared right?
> > >
> > > Again, we are explicitly looking at process not thread from userland
> > > perspective. A PIDFD_SELF_THREAD might be possible, but this series doesn't try
> > > to implement that.
> >
> > Florian raises a good point. Currently we have:
> >
> > (1) int pidfd_tgid = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> > (2) int pidfd_thread = pidfd_open(getpid(), PIDFD_THREAD);
> >
> > and this instructs:
> >
> > pidfd_send_signal()
> > pidfd_getfd()
> >
> > to do different things. For pidfd_send_signal() it's whether the
> > operation has thread-group scope or thread-scope for pidfd_send_signal()
> > and for pidfd_getfd() it determines the fdtable to use.
> >
> > The thing is that if you pass:
> >
> > pidfd_getfd(PDIFD_SELF)
> >
> > and you have:
> >
> > TGID
> >
> > T1 {
> > clone(CLONE_THREAD)
> > unshare(CLONE_FILES)
> > }
> >
> > T2 {
> > clone(CLONE_THREAD)
> > unshare(CLONE_FILES)
> > }
> >
> > You have 3 threads in the same thread-group that all have distinct file
> > descriptor tables from each other.
> >
> > So if T1 did:
> >
> > pidfd_getfd(PIDFD_SELF, ...)
> >
> > and we mirror the PIDTYPE_TGID behavior then T1 will very likely expect
> > to get the fd from its file descriptor table. IOW, its reasonable to
> > expect that T1 is interested in their very own resource, not someone
> > else's even if it is the thread-group leader.
> >
> > But what T1 will get in reality is an fd from TGID's file descriptor
> > table (and similar for T2).
> >
> > Iirc, yes that confusion exists already with /proc/self. But the
> > question is whether we should add the same confusion to the pidfd api or
> > whether we make PIDFD_SELF actually mean PIDTYPE_PID aka the actual
> > calling thread.
> >
> > My thinking is that if you have the reasonable suspicion that you're
> > multi-threaded and that you're interested in the thread-group resource
> > then you should be using:
> >
> > int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
> >
> > and hand that thread-group leader pidfd around since you're interested
> > in another thread. But if you're really just interested in your own
> > resource then pidfd_open(getpid(), 0) makes no sense and you would want
> > PIDFD_SELF.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I mean from my perspective, my aim is to get current->mm for
> process_madvise() so both work for me :) however you both raise a very good
> point here (sorry Florian, perhaps I was a little too dismissive as to your
> point, you're absolutely right).
>
> My intent was for PIDFD_SELF to simply mirror the pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
> behaviour, but you and Florian make a strong case that you'd _probably_
> find this very confusing had you unshared in this fashion.
>
> I mean in general this confusion already exists, and is for what
> PIDFD_THREAD was created, but I suspect ideally if you could go back you
> might actually do this by default Christian + let the TGL behaviour be the
> optional thing?
>
> For most users this will not be an issue, but for those they'd get the same
> result whichever they used, but yes actually I think you're both right -
> PIDFD_SELF should in effect imply PIDFD_THREAD.
Funnily enough we ran into issues with this when running Go code in runc
that did precisely this -- /proc/self gave you the wrong fd table in
very specific circumstances that were annoying to debug. For languages
with green-threading you can't turn off (like Go) these kinds of issues
pop up surprisingly often.
> We can adjust the pidfd_send_signal() call to infer the correct scope
> (actually nicely we can do that without any change there, by having
> __pidfd_get_pid() set f_flags accordingly).
>
> So TL;DR: I agree, I will respin with PIDFD_SELF referring to the thread.
>
> My question in return here then is - should we introduce PIDFD_SELF_PROCESS
> also (do advise if you feel this naming isn't quite right) - to provide
> thread group leader behaviour?
Sorry to bike-shed, but to match /proc/self and /proc/thread-self, maybe
they should be called PIDFD_SELF (for tgid) and PIDFD_THREAD_SELF (for
current's tid)? In principle I guess users might use PIDFD_SELF by
accident but if we mirror the naming with /proc/{,thread-}self that
might not be that big of an issue?
Just a thought.
>
> Thanks!
>
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce PIDFD_SELF
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-30 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Brauner
Cc: Florian Weimer, Christian Brauner, Shuah Khan, Liam R . Howlett,
Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka, pedro.falcato,
linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel, linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <20240930-verbiegen-zinspolitik-cafb730c3c84@brauner>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 02:34:33PM GMT, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:39:49AM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:33:18PM GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Lorenzo Stoakes:
> > >
> > > > If you wish to utilise a pidfd interface to refer to the current process
> > > > (from the point of view of userland - from the kernel point of view - the
> > > > thread group leader), it is rather cumbersome, requiring something like:
> > > >
> > > > int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > close(pidfd);
> > > >
> > > > Or the equivalent call opening /proc/self. It is more convenient to use a
> > > > sentinel value to indicate to an interface that accepts a pidfd that we
> > > > simply wish to refer to the current process.
> > >
> > > The descriptor will refer to the current thread, not process, right?
> >
> > No it refers to the current process (i.e. thread group leader from kernel
> > perspective). Unless you specify PIDFD_THREAD, this is the same if you did the above.
> >
> > >
> > > The distinction matters for pidfd_getfd if a process contains multiple
> > > threads with different file descriptor tables, and probably for
> > > pidfd_send_signal as well.
> >
> > You mean if you did a strange set of flags to clone()? Otherwise these are
> > shared right?
> >
> > Again, we are explicitly looking at process not thread from userland
> > perspective. A PIDFD_SELF_THREAD might be possible, but this series doesn't try
> > to implement that.
>
> Florian raises a good point. Currently we have:
>
> (1) int pidfd_tgid = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> (2) int pidfd_thread = pidfd_open(getpid(), PIDFD_THREAD);
>
> and this instructs:
>
> pidfd_send_signal()
> pidfd_getfd()
>
> to do different things. For pidfd_send_signal() it's whether the
> operation has thread-group scope or thread-scope for pidfd_send_signal()
> and for pidfd_getfd() it determines the fdtable to use.
>
> The thing is that if you pass:
>
> pidfd_getfd(PDIFD_SELF)
>
> and you have:
>
> TGID
>
> T1 {
> clone(CLONE_THREAD)
> unshare(CLONE_FILES)
> }
>
> T2 {
> clone(CLONE_THREAD)
> unshare(CLONE_FILES)
> }
>
> You have 3 threads in the same thread-group that all have distinct file
> descriptor tables from each other.
>
> So if T1 did:
>
> pidfd_getfd(PIDFD_SELF, ...)
>
> and we mirror the PIDTYPE_TGID behavior then T1 will very likely expect
> to get the fd from its file descriptor table. IOW, its reasonable to
> expect that T1 is interested in their very own resource, not someone
> else's even if it is the thread-group leader.
>
> But what T1 will get in reality is an fd from TGID's file descriptor
> table (and similar for T2).
>
> Iirc, yes that confusion exists already with /proc/self. But the
> question is whether we should add the same confusion to the pidfd api or
> whether we make PIDFD_SELF actually mean PIDTYPE_PID aka the actual
> calling thread.
>
> My thinking is that if you have the reasonable suspicion that you're
> multi-threaded and that you're interested in the thread-group resource
> then you should be using:
>
> int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
>
> and hand that thread-group leader pidfd around since you're interested
> in another thread. But if you're really just interested in your own
> resource then pidfd_open(getpid(), 0) makes no sense and you would want
> PIDFD_SELF.
>
> Thoughts?
I mean from my perspective, my aim is to get current->mm for
process_madvise() so both work for me :) however you both raise a very good
point here (sorry Florian, perhaps I was a little too dismissive as to your
point, you're absolutely right).
My intent was for PIDFD_SELF to simply mirror the pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
behaviour, but you and Florian make a strong case that you'd _probably_
find this very confusing had you unshared in this fashion.
I mean in general this confusion already exists, and is for what
PIDFD_THREAD was created, but I suspect ideally if you could go back you
might actually do this by default Christian + let the TGL behaviour be the
optional thing?
For most users this will not be an issue, but for those they'd get the same
result whichever they used, but yes actually I think you're both right -
PIDFD_SELF should in effect imply PIDFD_THREAD.
We can adjust the pidfd_send_signal() call to infer the correct scope
(actually nicely we can do that without any change there, by having
__pidfd_get_pid() set f_flags accordingly).
So TL;DR: I agree, I will respin with PIDFD_SELF referring to the thread.
My question in return here then is - should we introduce PIDFD_SELF_PROCESS
also (do advise if you feel this naming isn't quite right) - to provide
thread group leader behaviour?
Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce PIDFD_SELF
From: Christian Brauner @ 2024-09-30 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Stoakes
Cc: Florian Weimer, Christian Brauner, Shuah Khan, Liam R . Howlett,
Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka, pedro.falcato,
linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel, linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <42df57ac-d89c-4111-a04d-290dd2197573@lucifer.local>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:39:49AM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:33:18PM GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Lorenzo Stoakes:
> >
> > > If you wish to utilise a pidfd interface to refer to the current process
> > > (from the point of view of userland - from the kernel point of view - the
> > > thread group leader), it is rather cumbersome, requiring something like:
> > >
> > > int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > close(pidfd);
> > >
> > > Or the equivalent call opening /proc/self. It is more convenient to use a
> > > sentinel value to indicate to an interface that accepts a pidfd that we
> > > simply wish to refer to the current process.
> >
> > The descriptor will refer to the current thread, not process, right?
>
> No it refers to the current process (i.e. thread group leader from kernel
> perspective). Unless you specify PIDFD_THREAD, this is the same if you did the above.
>
> >
> > The distinction matters for pidfd_getfd if a process contains multiple
> > threads with different file descriptor tables, and probably for
> > pidfd_send_signal as well.
>
> You mean if you did a strange set of flags to clone()? Otherwise these are
> shared right?
>
> Again, we are explicitly looking at process not thread from userland
> perspective. A PIDFD_SELF_THREAD might be possible, but this series doesn't try
> to implement that.
Florian raises a good point. Currently we have:
(1) int pidfd_tgid = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
(2) int pidfd_thread = pidfd_open(getpid(), PIDFD_THREAD);
and this instructs:
pidfd_send_signal()
pidfd_getfd()
to do different things. For pidfd_send_signal() it's whether the
operation has thread-group scope or thread-scope for pidfd_send_signal()
and for pidfd_getfd() it determines the fdtable to use.
The thing is that if you pass:
pidfd_getfd(PDIFD_SELF)
and you have:
TGID
T1 {
clone(CLONE_THREAD)
unshare(CLONE_FILES)
}
T2 {
clone(CLONE_THREAD)
unshare(CLONE_FILES)
}
You have 3 threads in the same thread-group that all have distinct file
descriptor tables from each other.
So if T1 did:
pidfd_getfd(PIDFD_SELF, ...)
and we mirror the PIDTYPE_TGID behavior then T1 will very likely expect
to get the fd from its file descriptor table. IOW, its reasonable to
expect that T1 is interested in their very own resource, not someone
else's even if it is the thread-group leader.
But what T1 will get in reality is an fd from TGID's file descriptor
table (and similar for T2).
Iirc, yes that confusion exists already with /proc/self. But the
question is whether we should add the same confusion to the pidfd api or
whether we make PIDFD_SELF actually mean PIDTYPE_PID aka the actual
calling thread.
My thinking is that if you have the reasonable suspicion that you're
multi-threaded and that you're interested in the thread-group resource
then you should be using:
int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
and hand that thread-group leader pidfd around since you're interested
in another thread. But if you're really just interested in your own
resource then pidfd_open(getpid(), 0) makes no sense and you would want
PIDFD_SELF.
Thoughts?
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce PIDFD_SELF
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-30 10:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Florian Weimer
Cc: Christian Brauner, Shuah Khan, Liam R . Howlett,
Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka, pedro.falcato,
linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel, linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <87ttdxl9ch.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:33:18PM GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Lorenzo Stoakes:
>
> > If you wish to utilise a pidfd interface to refer to the current process
> > (from the point of view of userland - from the kernel point of view - the
> > thread group leader), it is rather cumbersome, requiring something like:
> >
> > int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> >
> > ...
> >
> > close(pidfd);
> >
> > Or the equivalent call opening /proc/self. It is more convenient to use a
> > sentinel value to indicate to an interface that accepts a pidfd that we
> > simply wish to refer to the current process.
>
> The descriptor will refer to the current thread, not process, right?
No it refers to the current process (i.e. thread group leader from kernel
perspective). Unless you specify PIDFD_THREAD, this is the same if you did the above.
>
> The distinction matters for pidfd_getfd if a process contains multiple
> threads with different file descriptor tables, and probably for
> pidfd_send_signal as well.
You mean if you did a strange set of flags to clone()? Otherwise these are
shared right?
Again, we are explicitly looking at process not thread from userland
perspective. A PIDFD_SELF_THREAD might be possible, but this series doesn't try
to implement that.
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce PIDFD_SELF
From: Florian Weimer @ 2024-09-30 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Stoakes
Cc: Christian Brauner, Shuah Khan, Liam R . Howlett,
Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka, pedro.falcato,
linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel, linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <cover.1727644404.git.lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
* Lorenzo Stoakes:
> If you wish to utilise a pidfd interface to refer to the current process
> (from the point of view of userland - from the kernel point of view - the
> thread group leader), it is rather cumbersome, requiring something like:
>
> int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
>
> ...
>
> close(pidfd);
>
> Or the equivalent call opening /proc/self. It is more convenient to use a
> sentinel value to indicate to an interface that accepts a pidfd that we
> simply wish to refer to the current process.
The descriptor will refer to the current thread, not process, right?
The distinction matters for pidfd_getfd if a process contains multiple
threads with different file descriptor tables, and probably for
pidfd_send_signal as well.
Thanks,
Florian
^ permalink raw reply
* [RFC PATCH 3/3] selftests: pidfd: add tests for PIDFD_SELF
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-30 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Brauner
Cc: Shuah Khan, Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka,
pedro.falcato, linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel,
linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <cover.1727644404.git.lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Add tests to assert that PIDFD_SELF correctly refers to the current
process.
This is only practically meaningful to pidfd_send_signal() and
pidfd_getfd(), but also explicitly test that we disallow this feature for
setns() where it would make no sense.
We cannot reasonably wait on ourself using waitid(P_PIDFD, ...) so while in
theory PIDFD_SELF would work here, we'd be left blocked if we tried it.
We defer testing of mm-specific functionality which uses pidfd, namely
process_madvise() and process_mrelease() to mm testing (though note the
latter can not be sensibly tested as it would require the testing process
to be dying).
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd.h | 5 +++
.../selftests/pidfd/pidfd_getfd_test.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/pidfd/pidfd_setns_test.c | 6 +++
tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c | 13 +++++++
4 files changed, 62 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd.h b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd.h
index 88d6830ee004..099ee7178193 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd.h
@@ -50,6 +50,11 @@
#define PIDFD_NONBLOCK O_NONBLOCK
#endif
+/* System header file may not have this available. */
+#ifndef PIDFD_SELF
+#define PIDFD_SELF -200
+#endif
+
/*
* The kernel reserves 300 pids via RESERVED_PIDS in kernel/pid.c
* That means, when it wraps around any pid < 300 will be skipped.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_getfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_getfd_test.c
index cd51d547b751..cdf375fd61b2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_getfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_getfd_test.c
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
#include <sys/prctl.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>
+#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <linux/kcmp.h>
@@ -264,6 +265,43 @@ TEST_F(child, no_strange_EBADF)
EXPECT_EQ(errno, ESRCH);
}
+TEST(pidfd_self)
+{
+ int memfd = sys_memfd_create("test_self", 0);
+ long page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
+ int newfd;
+ char *ptr;
+
+ ASSERT_GE(memfd, 0);
+ ASSERT_EQ(ftruncate(memfd, page_size), 0);
+
+ /*
+ * Map so we can assert that the duplicated fd references the same
+ * memory.
+ */
+ ptr = mmap(NULL, page_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+ MAP_SHARED, memfd, 0);
+ ASSERT_NE(ptr, MAP_FAILED);
+ ptr[0] = 'x';
+ ASSERT_EQ(munmap(ptr, page_size), 0);
+
+ /* Now get a duplicate of our memfd. */
+ newfd = sys_pidfd_getfd(PIDFD_SELF, memfd, 0);
+ ASSERT_GE(newfd, 0);
+ ASSERT_NE(memfd, newfd);
+
+ /* Now map duplicate fd and make sure it references the same memory. */
+ ptr = mmap(NULL, page_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+ MAP_SHARED, newfd, 0);
+ ASSERT_NE(ptr, MAP_FAILED);
+ ASSERT_EQ(ptr[0], 'x');
+ ASSERT_EQ(munmap(ptr, page_size), 0);
+
+ /* Cleanup. */
+ close(memfd);
+ close(newfd);
+}
+
#if __NR_pidfd_getfd == -1
int main(void)
{
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_setns_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_setns_test.c
index 7c2a4349170a..8e1510744aaa 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_setns_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_setns_test.c
@@ -752,4 +752,10 @@ TEST(setns_einval)
close(fd);
}
+TEST(setns_pidfd_self_disallowed)
+{
+ ASSERT_EQ(setns(PIDFD_SELF, 0), -1);
+ EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBADF);
+}
+
TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c
index 9faa686f90e4..18802b657352 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c
@@ -85,6 +85,19 @@ static int test_pidfd_send_signal_simple_success(void)
test_name);
signal_received = 0;
+
+ /* Now try the same thing only using PIDFD_SELF. */
+ ret = sys_pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_SELF, SIGUSR1, NULL, 0);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Failed to send PIDFD_SELF signal\n",
+ test_name);
+
+ if (signal_received != 1)
+ ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Failed to receive PIDFD_SELF signal\n",
+ test_name);
+
+ signal_received = 0;
+
ksft_test_result_pass("%s test: Sent signal\n", test_name);
return 0;
}
--
2.46.2
^ permalink raw reply related
* [RFC PATCH 2/3] pidfd: add PIDFD_SELF sentinel to refer to own process
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-30 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Brauner
Cc: Shuah Khan, Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka,
pedro.falcato, linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel,
linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <cover.1727644404.git.lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Add a PIDFD_SELF special sentinel value which can be passed as a pidfd to
indicate that the current process is to be targeted (as this is a process
from the userland perspective, this means from the kernel's perspective the
current thread group leader is to be targeted).
Due to the refactoring of the central __pidfd_get_pid() function we can
implement this functionality centrally, providing the use of this sentinel
in most functionality which utilises pidfd's.
We need to explicitly adjust kernel_waitid_prepare() to permit this (though
it wouldn't really make sense to use this there, we provide the ability for
consistency).
We explicitly disallow use of this in setns(), which would otherwise have
required explicit custom handling, as it doesn't make sense to set the
current calling thread to join the namespace of itself.
As the callers of pidfd_get_pid() expect an increased reference count on
the pid we do so in this case even for the current thread leader, reducing
churn and avoiding any breakage from existing logic which decrements this
reference count.
In the pidfd_send_signal() system call, we can continue to fdput() the
struct fd output by pidfs_to_pid_proc() even if PIDFD_SELF is specified, as
this will be empty and the invocation will be a no-op.
This change implicitly provides PIDFD_SELF support in the waitid(P_PIDFS,
...), process_madvise(), process_mrelease(), pidfd_send_signal(), and
pidfd_getfd() system calls.
Things such as polling a pidfs and general fd operations are not supported,
this strictly provides the sentinel for APIs which explicitly accept a
pidfd.
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
---
include/linux/pid.h | 9 +++---
include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h | 3 ++
kernel/exit.c | 3 +-
kernel/nsproxy.c | 1 +
kernel/pid.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
5 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/pid.h b/include/linux/pid.h
index 68b02eab7509..e95dd7b81ae2 100644
--- a/include/linux/pid.h
+++ b/include/linux/pid.h
@@ -77,18 +77,19 @@ struct file;
/**
* __pidfd_get_pid() - Retrieve a pid associated with the specified pidfd.
*
- * @pidfd: The pidfd whose pid we want, or the fd of a /proc/<pid> file if
- * @alloc_proc is also set.
+ * @pidfd: The pidfd whose pid we want, the fd of a /proc/<pid> file if
+ * @alloc_proc is also set, or PIDFD_SELF if the pid we require
+ * is the thread group leader.
* @pin_pid: If set, then the reference counter of the returned pid is
* incremented. If not set, then @fd should be provided to pin the
* pidfd.
* @allow_proc: If set, then an fd of a /proc/<pid> file can be passed instead
* of a pidfd, and this will be used to determine the pid.
* @flags: Output variable, if non-NULL, then the file->f_flags of the
- * pidfd will be set here.
+ * pidfd will be set here. If PIDFD_SELF set, this is zero.
* @fd: Output variable, if non-NULL, then the pidfd reference will
* remain elevated and the caller will need to decrement it
- * themselves.
+ * themselves. If PIDFD_SELF set, this is empty.
*
* Returns: If successful, the pid associated with the pidfd, otherwise an
* error.
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h b/include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h
index 565fc0629fff..0bff5276b51d 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h
@@ -29,4 +29,7 @@
#define PIDFD_GET_USER_NAMESPACE _IO(PIDFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 9)
#define PIDFD_GET_UTS_NAMESPACE _IO(PIDFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 10)
+#define PIDFD_SELF -200 /* Special sentinel value which can be passed as a pidfd
+ * to refer to the current thread group leader. */
+
#endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_PIDFD_H */
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index 619f0014c33b..fc10eb2b180c 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@
#include <linux/user_events.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
+#include <uapi/linux/pidfd.h>
#include <uapi/linux/wait.h>
#include <asm/unistd.h>
@@ -1739,7 +1740,7 @@ int kernel_waitid_prepare(struct wait_opts *wo, int which, pid_t upid,
break;
case P_PIDFD:
type = PIDTYPE_PID;
- if (upid < 0)
+ if (upid < 0 && upid != PIDFD_SELF)
return -EINVAL;
pid = pidfd_get_pid(upid, &f_flags);
diff --git a/kernel/nsproxy.c b/kernel/nsproxy.c
index dc952c3b05af..aee86fcaf670 100644
--- a/kernel/nsproxy.c
+++ b/kernel/nsproxy.c
@@ -550,6 +550,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(setns, int, fd, int, flags)
struct nsset nsset = {};
int err = 0;
+ /* If fd is PIDFD_SELF, implicitly fail here, as invalid. */
if (!fd_file(f))
return -EBADF;
diff --git a/kernel/pid.c b/kernel/pid.c
index 26e2581210c4..9c037441afb8 100644
--- a/kernel/pid.c
+++ b/kernel/pid.c
@@ -539,23 +539,28 @@ struct pid *__pidfd_get_pid(unsigned int pidfd, bool pin_pid,
bool allow_proc, unsigned int *flags,
struct fd *fd)
{
- struct fd f;
struct pid *pid;
- struct file *file;
-
- f = fdget(fd);
- file = fd_file(f);
- if (!file)
- return ERR_PTR(-EBADF);
-
- pid = pidfd_pid(file);
- /* If we allow opening a pidfd via /proc/<pid>, do so. */
- if (IS_ERR(pid) && allow_proc)
- pid = tgid_pidfd_to_pid(file);
-
- if (IS_ERR(pid)) {
- fdput(f);
- return pid;
+ struct fd f = {};
+ struct file *file = NULL;
+ unsigned int f_flags = 0;
+
+ if (pidfd == PIDFD_SELF) {
+ pid = *task_pid_ptr(current, PIDTYPE_TGID);
+ } else {
+ f = fdget(pidfd);
+ file = fd_file(f);
+ if (!file)
+ return ERR_PTR(-EBADF);
+
+ pid = pidfd_pid(file);
+ /* If we allow opening a pidfd via /proc/<pid>, do so. */
+ if (IS_ERR(pid) && allow_proc)
+ pid = tgid_pidfd_to_pid(file);
+
+ if (IS_ERR(pid)) {
+ fdput(f);
+ return pid;
+ }
}
if (pin_pid)
@@ -563,18 +568,22 @@ struct pid *__pidfd_get_pid(unsigned int pidfd, bool pin_pid,
else
WARN_ON_ONCE(!fd); /* Nothing to keep pid/pidfd around? */
- if (flags)
- *flags = file->f_flags;
+ if (file) {
+ f_flags = file->f_flags;
- /*
- * If the user provides an fd output then it will handle decrementing
- * its reference counter.
- */
- if (fd)
- *fd = f;
- else
- /* Otherwise we release it. */
- fdput(f);
+ /*
+ * If the user provides an fd output then it will handle decrementing
+ * its reference counter.
+ */
+ if (fd)
+ *fd = f;
+ else
+ /* Otherwise we release it. */
+ fdput(f);
+ }
+
+ if (flags)
+ *flags = f_flags;
return pid;
}
--
2.46.2
^ permalink raw reply related
* [RFC PATCH 1/3] pidfd: refactor pidfd_get_pid/to_pid() and de-duplicate pid lookup
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-30 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Brauner
Cc: Shuah Khan, Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka,
pedro.falcato, linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel,
linux-api, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <cover.1727644404.git.lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
The means by which a pid is determined from a pidfd is duplicated,
some callers holding a reference to the (pid)fd, and others explicitly
pinning the pid.
Introduce __pidfd_get_pid() which abstracts both approaches and provide
optional output parameters for file->f_flags and the fd (the latter of
which, if provided, prevents the function from decrementing the fd's
reference count).
We add a wrapper function pidfd_get_pid() which performs the same
functionality as the original, only deferring to __pidfd_get_pid() for the
heavy lifting.
Additionally, abstract the ability to open a pidfd by opening a /proc/<pid>
directory (used by the pidfd_send_signal() system call), providing a
pidfd_get_pid_proc() wrapper function to do so.
Doing this allows us to eliminate open-coded pidfd pid lookup and to
consistently handle this in one place.
This lays the groundwork for a subsequent patch which adds a new sentinel
pidfd to explicitly reference the current process (i.e. thread group
leader) without the need for a pidfd.
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
---
include/linux/pid.h | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
kernel/pid.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
kernel/signal.c | 26 +++++----------------
3 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/pid.h b/include/linux/pid.h
index a3aad9b4074c..68b02eab7509 100644
--- a/include/linux/pid.h
+++ b/include/linux/pid.h
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
#ifndef _LINUX_PID_H
#define _LINUX_PID_H
+#include <linux/file.h>
#include <linux/pid_types.h>
#include <linux/rculist.h>
#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
@@ -72,8 +73,47 @@ extern struct pid init_struct_pid;
struct file;
+
+/**
+ * __pidfd_get_pid() - Retrieve a pid associated with the specified pidfd.
+ *
+ * @pidfd: The pidfd whose pid we want, or the fd of a /proc/<pid> file if
+ * @alloc_proc is also set.
+ * @pin_pid: If set, then the reference counter of the returned pid is
+ * incremented. If not set, then @fd should be provided to pin the
+ * pidfd.
+ * @allow_proc: If set, then an fd of a /proc/<pid> file can be passed instead
+ * of a pidfd, and this will be used to determine the pid.
+ * @flags: Output variable, if non-NULL, then the file->f_flags of the
+ * pidfd will be set here.
+ * @fd: Output variable, if non-NULL, then the pidfd reference will
+ * remain elevated and the caller will need to decrement it
+ * themselves.
+ *
+ * Returns: If successful, the pid associated with the pidfd, otherwise an
+ * error.
+ */
+struct pid *__pidfd_get_pid(unsigned int pidfd, bool pin_pid,
+ bool allow_proc, unsigned int *flags,
+ struct fd *fd);
+
+static inline struct pid *pidfd_get_pid(unsigned int pidfd, unsigned int *flags)
+{
+ return __pidfd_get_pid(pidfd, /* pin_pid = */ true,
+ /* allow_proc = */ false,
+ flags, /* fd = */ NULL);
+}
+
+static inline struct pid *pidfd_to_pid_proc(unsigned int pidfd,
+ unsigned int *flags,
+ struct fd *fd)
+{
+ return __pidfd_get_pid(pidfd, /* pin_pid = */ false,
+ /* allow_proc = */ true,
+ flags, fd);
+}
+
struct pid *pidfd_pid(const struct file *file);
-struct pid *pidfd_get_pid(unsigned int fd, unsigned int *flags);
struct task_struct *pidfd_get_task(int pidfd, unsigned int *flags);
int pidfd_prepare(struct pid *pid, unsigned int flags, struct file **ret);
void do_notify_pidfd(struct task_struct *task);
diff --git a/kernel/pid.c b/kernel/pid.c
index 2715afb77eab..26e2581210c4 100644
--- a/kernel/pid.c
+++ b/kernel/pid.c
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
#include <linux/pid_namespace.h>
#include <linux/init_task.h>
#include <linux/syscalls.h>
+#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
#include <linux/proc_ns.h>
#include <linux/refcount.h>
#include <linux/anon_inodes.h>
@@ -534,22 +535,47 @@ struct pid *find_ge_pid(int nr, struct pid_namespace *ns)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(find_ge_pid);
-struct pid *pidfd_get_pid(unsigned int fd, unsigned int *flags)
+struct pid *__pidfd_get_pid(unsigned int pidfd, bool pin_pid,
+ bool allow_proc, unsigned int *flags,
+ struct fd *fd)
{
struct fd f;
struct pid *pid;
+ struct file *file;
f = fdget(fd);
- if (!fd_file(f))
+ file = fd_file(f);
+ if (!file)
return ERR_PTR(-EBADF);
- pid = pidfd_pid(fd_file(f));
- if (!IS_ERR(pid)) {
- get_pid(pid);
- *flags = fd_file(f)->f_flags;
+ pid = pidfd_pid(file);
+ /* If we allow opening a pidfd via /proc/<pid>, do so. */
+ if (IS_ERR(pid) && allow_proc)
+ pid = tgid_pidfd_to_pid(file);
+
+ if (IS_ERR(pid)) {
+ fdput(f);
+ return pid;
}
- fdput(f);
+ if (pin_pid)
+ get_pid(pid);
+ else
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!fd); /* Nothing to keep pid/pidfd around? */
+
+ if (flags)
+ *flags = file->f_flags;
+
+ /*
+ * If the user provides an fd output then it will handle decrementing
+ * its reference counter.
+ */
+ if (fd)
+ *fd = f;
+ else
+ /* Otherwise we release it. */
+ fdput(f);
+
return pid;
}
@@ -747,23 +773,18 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(pidfd_getfd, int, pidfd, int, fd,
unsigned int, flags)
{
struct pid *pid;
- struct fd f;
int ret;
/* flags is currently unused - make sure it's unset */
if (flags)
return -EINVAL;
- f = fdget(pidfd);
- if (!fd_file(f))
- return -EBADF;
-
- pid = pidfd_pid(fd_file(f));
+ pid = pidfd_get_pid(pidfd, NULL);
if (IS_ERR(pid))
- ret = PTR_ERR(pid);
- else
- ret = pidfd_getfd(pid, fd);
+ return PTR_ERR(pid);
- fdput(f);
+ ret = pidfd_getfd(pid, fd);
+
+ put_pid(pid);
return ret;
}
diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 6e57036f947f..abbb1931deba 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -3894,17 +3894,6 @@ static int copy_siginfo_from_user_any(kernel_siginfo_t *kinfo,
return copy_siginfo_from_user(kinfo, info);
}
-static struct pid *pidfd_to_pid(const struct file *file)
-{
- struct pid *pid;
-
- pid = pidfd_pid(file);
- if (!IS_ERR(pid))
- return pid;
-
- return tgid_pidfd_to_pid(file);
-}
-
#define PIDFD_SEND_SIGNAL_FLAGS \
(PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD | PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD_GROUP | \
PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP)
@@ -3931,6 +3920,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pidfd_send_signal, int, pidfd, int, sig,
struct pid *pid;
kernel_siginfo_t kinfo;
enum pid_type type;
+ unsigned int f_flags;
/* Enforce flags be set to 0 until we add an extension. */
if (flags & ~PIDFD_SEND_SIGNAL_FLAGS)
@@ -3940,16 +3930,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pidfd_send_signal, int, pidfd, int, sig,
if (hweight32(flags & PIDFD_SEND_SIGNAL_FLAGS) > 1)
return -EINVAL;
- f = fdget(pidfd);
- if (!fd_file(f))
- return -EBADF;
-
/* Is this a pidfd? */
- pid = pidfd_to_pid(fd_file(f));
- if (IS_ERR(pid)) {
- ret = PTR_ERR(pid);
- goto err;
- }
+ pid = pidfd_to_pid_proc(pidfd, &f_flags, &f);
+ if (IS_ERR(pid))
+ return PTR_ERR(pid);
ret = -EINVAL;
if (!access_pidfd_pidns(pid))
@@ -3958,7 +3942,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pidfd_send_signal, int, pidfd, int, sig,
switch (flags) {
case 0:
/* Infer scope from the type of pidfd. */
- if (fd_file(f)->f_flags & PIDFD_THREAD)
+ if (f_flags & PIDFD_THREAD)
type = PIDTYPE_PID;
else
type = PIDTYPE_TGID;
--
2.46.2
^ permalink raw reply related
* [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce PIDFD_SELF
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-30 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Brauner
Cc: Shuah Khan, Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan, Vlastimil Babka,
pedro.falcato, linux-kselftest, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel,
linux-api, linux-kernel
If you wish to utilise a pidfd interface to refer to the current process
(from the point of view of userland - from the kernel point of view - the
thread group leader), it is rather cumbersome, requiring something like:
int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
...
close(pidfd);
Or the equivalent call opening /proc/self. It is more convenient to use a
sentinel value to indicate to an interface that accepts a pidfd that we
simply wish to refer to the current process.
This series introduces such a sentinel, PIDFD_SELF, which can be passed as
the pidfd in this instance rather than having to establish a dummy fd for
this purpose.
The only pidfd interface where this is particularly useful is
process_madvise(), which provides the motivation for this series. However,
as this is a general interface, we ensure that all pidfd interfaces can
handle this correctly.
We ensure that pidfd_send_signal() and pidfd_getfd() work correctly, and
assert as much in selftests. All other interfaces except setns() will work
implicitly with this new interface, however it doesn't make sense to test
waitid(P_PIDFD, ...) as waiting on ourselves is a blocking operation.
In the case of setns() we explicitly disallow use of PIDFD_SELF as it
doesn't make sense to obtain the namespaces of our own process, and it
would require work to implement this functionality there that would be of
no use.
We also do not provide the ability to utilise PIDFD_SELF in ordinary fd
operations such as open() or poll(), as this would require extensive work
and be of no real use.
Lorenzo Stoakes (3):
pidfd: refactor pidfd_get_pid/to_pid() and de-duplicate pid lookup
pidfd: add PIDFD_SELF sentinel to refer to own process
selftests: pidfd: add tests for PIDFD_SELF
include/linux/pid.h | 43 +++++++++++-
include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h | 3 +
kernel/exit.c | 3 +-
kernel/nsproxy.c | 1 +
kernel/pid.c | 70 +++++++++++++------
kernel/signal.c | 26 ++-----
tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd.h | 5 ++
.../selftests/pidfd/pidfd_getfd_test.c | 38 ++++++++++
.../selftests/pidfd/pidfd_setns_test.c | 6 ++
tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c | 13 ++++
10 files changed, 165 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
--
2.46.2
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH RFT v9 4/8] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
From: Edgecombe, Rick P @ 2024-09-27 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: broonie@kernel.org, brauner@kernel.org
Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, shuah@kernel.org, Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, debug@rivosinc.com, mgorman@suse.de,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
fweimer@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
kees@kernel.org, will@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, jannh@google.com,
peterz@infradead.org, yury.khrustalev@arm.com, bp@alien8.de,
wilco.dijkstra@arm.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
bsegall@google.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20240927-springen-fortpflanzen-34a303373088@brauner>
On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 10:50 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> The legacy clone system call had required userspace to know in which
> direction the stack was growing and then pass down the stack pointer
> appropriately (e.g., parisc grows upwards).
>
> And in fact, the old clone() system call did take an additional
> stack_size argument on specific architectures. For example, on
> microblaze.
>
> Also, when clone3() was done we still had ia64 in the tree which had a
> separate clone2() system call that also required a stack_size argument.
>
> So userspace ended up with code like this or worse:
>
> #define __STACK_SIZE (8 * 1024 * 1024)
> pid_t sys_clone(int (*fn)(void *), void *arg, int flags, int *pidfd)
> {
> pid_t ret;
> void *stack;
>
> stack = malloc(__STACK_SIZE);
> if (!stack)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> #ifdef __ia64__
> ret = __clone2(fn, stack, __STACK_SIZE, flags | SIGCHLD, arg, pidfd);
> #elif defined(__parisc__) /* stack grows up */
> ret = clone(fn, stack, flags | SIGCHLD, arg, pidfd);
> #else
> ret = clone(fn, stack + __STACK_SIZE, flags | SIGCHLD, arg, pidfd);
> #endif
> return ret;
> }
>
> So we talked to the glibc folks which preferred the kernel to do all
> this nonsense for them as it has that knowledge.
Thanks for the info!
>
> My preference is to keep the api consistent and require a stack_size for
> shadow stacks as well.
Did you catch that a token can be at a different offsets location on the stack
depending on args passed to map_shadow_stack? So userspace will need something
like the code above, but that adjusts the 'shadow_stack_size' such that the
kernel looks for the token in the right place. It will be even weirder if
someone uses clone3 to switch to a stack that has already been used, and pivoted
off of, such that a token was left in the middle of the stack. In that case
userspace would have to come up with args disconnected from the actual size of
the shadow stack such that the kernel would be cajoled into looking for the
token in the right place.
A shadow stack size is more symmetric on the surface, but I'm not sure it will
be easier for userspace to handle. So I think we should just have a pointer to
the token. But it will be a usable implementation either way.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH RFT v9 4/8] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
From: Christian Brauner @ 2024-09-27 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Edgecombe, Rick P, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
debug@rivosinc.com, mgorman@suse.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
fweimer@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
vschneid@redhat.com, kees@kernel.org, will@kernel.org,
hpa@zytor.com, jannh@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
yury.khrustalev@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, wilco.dijkstra@arm.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, bsegall@google.com,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <158190d9-a4a6-4647-84e8-f4ae036d984b@sirena.org.uk>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 06:23:18PM GMT, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 03:54:49PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-08-21 at 13:45 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > It's entirely possible it just leaked. My own attempts to dig through
> > > the archives haven't turned up anything on the subjecti either, it seems
> > > to have been there from the get go and just gone in without comment.
> > > Equally it could just be that people felt that this was a more tasteful
> > > way of specifying stacks, or that some future use was envisioned.
>
> > Ok, well I'm suspicious, but won't object over it. The rest seems settled from
> > my side. I may try to attract some other x86 attention to that CMPXCHG helper,
> > but otherwise.
>
> OK, I'll post what I've got (with the current ABI) today, incorporating
> your x86 fixes and the tighter validation and we can see what people
> think. Perhaps Christian remembers what's going on there?
The legacy clone system call had required userspace to know in which
direction the stack was growing and then pass down the stack pointer
appropriately (e.g., parisc grows upwards).
And in fact, the old clone() system call did take an additional
stack_size argument on specific architectures. For example, on
microblaze.
Also, when clone3() was done we still had ia64 in the tree which had a
separate clone2() system call that also required a stack_size argument.
So userspace ended up with code like this or worse:
#define __STACK_SIZE (8 * 1024 * 1024)
pid_t sys_clone(int (*fn)(void *), void *arg, int flags, int *pidfd)
{
pid_t ret;
void *stack;
stack = malloc(__STACK_SIZE);
if (!stack)
return -ENOMEM;
#ifdef __ia64__
ret = __clone2(fn, stack, __STACK_SIZE, flags | SIGCHLD, arg, pidfd);
#elif defined(__parisc__) /* stack grows up */
ret = clone(fn, stack, flags | SIGCHLD, arg, pidfd);
#else
ret = clone(fn, stack + __STACK_SIZE, flags | SIGCHLD, arg, pidfd);
#endif
return ret;
}
So we talked to the glibc folks which preferred the kernel to do all
this nonsense for them as it has that knowledge.
My preference is to keep the api consistent and require a stack_size for
shadow stacks as well.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/madvise: unrestrict process_madvise() for current process
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-27 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vlastimil Babka
Cc: Andrew Morton, Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan,
Arnd Bergmann, Shakeel Butt, linux-api, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
Minchan Kim, Christian Brauner, pedro.falcato
In-Reply-To: <c96c4cf6-e007-4a19-a830-4a2a073620e7@suse.cz>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 10:12:33AM GMT, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/26/24 17:10, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > The process_madvise() call was introduced in commit ecb8ac8b1f14
> > ("mm/madvise: introduce process_madvise() syscall: an external memory
> > hinting API") as a means of performing madvise() operations on another
> > process.
> >
> > However, as it provides the means by which to perform multiple madvise()
> > operations in a batch via an iovec, it is useful to utilise the same
> > interface for performing operations on the current process rather than a
> > remote one.
> >
> > Commit 22af8caff7d1 ("mm/madvise: process_madvise() drop capability check
> > if same mm") removed the need for a caller invoking process_madvise() on
> > its own pidfd to possess the CAP_SYS_NICE capability, however this leaves
> > the restrictions on operation in place.
> >
> > Resolve this by only applying the restriction on operations when accessing
> > a remote process.
> >
> > Moving forward we plan to implement a simpler means of specifying this
> > condition other than needing to establish a self pidfd, perhaps in the form
> > of a sentinel pidfd.
> >
> > Also take the opportunity to refactor the system call implementation
> > abstracting the vectorised operation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
>
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>
> Looks like the destructive modes should work with the vectorized version
> too, and with how it returns a partial success.
>
Right yeah, intent is to allow those modes when referring to the current
process. Partial success logic across ranges mirrors how we generally handle
partial success in destructive operations so should all be good.
> We'll need a man page update though, right?
>
Ack, I intend to send a patch for this separately.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/madvise: unrestrict process_madvise() for current process
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-27 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Brauner
Cc: Shakeel Butt, Andrew Morton, Vlastimil Babka, Liam R . Howlett,
Suren Baghdasaryan, Arnd Bergmann, linux-api, linux-mm,
linux-kernel, Minchan Kim, pedro.falcato
In-Reply-To: <20240927-holzlatten-karierte-2f1e5c0af19d@brauner>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 10:04:25AM GMT, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 08:52:32AM GMT, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 04:10:19PM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > The process_madvise() call was introduced in commit ecb8ac8b1f14
> > > ("mm/madvise: introduce process_madvise() syscall: an external memory
> > > hinting API") as a means of performing madvise() operations on another
> > > process.
> > >
> > > However, as it provides the means by which to perform multiple madvise()
> > > operations in a batch via an iovec, it is useful to utilise the same
> > > interface for performing operations on the current process rather than a
> > > remote one.
> > >
> > > Commit 22af8caff7d1 ("mm/madvise: process_madvise() drop capability check
> > > if same mm") removed the need for a caller invoking process_madvise() on
> > > its own pidfd to possess the CAP_SYS_NICE capability, however this leaves
> > > the restrictions on operation in place.
> > >
> > > Resolve this by only applying the restriction on operations when accessing
> > > a remote process.
> > >
> > > Moving forward we plan to implement a simpler means of specifying this
> > > condition other than needing to establish a self pidfd, perhaps in the form
> > > of a sentinel pidfd.
> > >
> > > Also take the opportunity to refactor the system call implementation
> > > abstracting the vectorised operation.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> >
> > Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
> >
> > > ---
> > > v3:
> > > * Avoid introducing PR_MADV_SELF and defer a non-pidfd version until later.
> >
> > Seems like a good plan to decouple this patch from PR_MADV_SELF vs
> > PIDFD_SELF decision. I am hoping to see the follow up patch as well.
>
> PIDFD_SELF should absolutely not be a per-system call thing. It should
> be generic across all pidfd based system calls similar to AT_FDCWD.
>
> IOW, that should be in:
>
> include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h
>
> #define PIDFD_SELF -200
Yes this is what I was saying elsewhere in the thread :) this is why it's
important to have this as a separate enterprise.
And indeed this is the intent, I will be working on a separate patch series
to this effect. It also gives us the space to implement it in calls which
use pidfd where it makes sense and to extend testing accordingly.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/madvise: unrestrict process_madvise() for current process
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2024-09-27 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Stoakes, Andrew Morton
Cc: Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan, Arnd Bergmann, Shakeel Butt,
linux-api, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Minchan Kim, Christian Brauner,
pedro.falcato
In-Reply-To: <20240926151019.82902-1-lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
On 9/26/24 17:10, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> The process_madvise() call was introduced in commit ecb8ac8b1f14
> ("mm/madvise: introduce process_madvise() syscall: an external memory
> hinting API") as a means of performing madvise() operations on another
> process.
>
> However, as it provides the means by which to perform multiple madvise()
> operations in a batch via an iovec, it is useful to utilise the same
> interface for performing operations on the current process rather than a
> remote one.
>
> Commit 22af8caff7d1 ("mm/madvise: process_madvise() drop capability check
> if same mm") removed the need for a caller invoking process_madvise() on
> its own pidfd to possess the CAP_SYS_NICE capability, however this leaves
> the restrictions on operation in place.
>
> Resolve this by only applying the restriction on operations when accessing
> a remote process.
>
> Moving forward we plan to implement a simpler means of specifying this
> condition other than needing to establish a self pidfd, perhaps in the form
> of a sentinel pidfd.
>
> Also take the opportunity to refactor the system call implementation
> abstracting the vectorised operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Looks like the destructive modes should work with the vectorized version
too, and with how it returns a partial success.
We'll need a man page update though, right?
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/madvise: unrestrict process_madvise() for current process
From: Christian Brauner @ 2024-09-27 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shakeel Butt
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes, Andrew Morton, Vlastimil Babka, Liam R . Howlett,
Suren Baghdasaryan, Arnd Bergmann, linux-api, linux-mm,
linux-kernel, Minchan Kim, pedro.falcato
In-Reply-To: <xv5qg4hfqvqzooounx57hzl4jzmfefitf3qklcdqzz7a4dufxn@v3r47r7p6ono>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 08:52:32AM GMT, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 04:10:19PM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > The process_madvise() call was introduced in commit ecb8ac8b1f14
> > ("mm/madvise: introduce process_madvise() syscall: an external memory
> > hinting API") as a means of performing madvise() operations on another
> > process.
> >
> > However, as it provides the means by which to perform multiple madvise()
> > operations in a batch via an iovec, it is useful to utilise the same
> > interface for performing operations on the current process rather than a
> > remote one.
> >
> > Commit 22af8caff7d1 ("mm/madvise: process_madvise() drop capability check
> > if same mm") removed the need for a caller invoking process_madvise() on
> > its own pidfd to possess the CAP_SYS_NICE capability, however this leaves
> > the restrictions on operation in place.
> >
> > Resolve this by only applying the restriction on operations when accessing
> > a remote process.
> >
> > Moving forward we plan to implement a simpler means of specifying this
> > condition other than needing to establish a self pidfd, perhaps in the form
> > of a sentinel pidfd.
> >
> > Also take the opportunity to refactor the system call implementation
> > abstracting the vectorised operation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
>
> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
>
> > ---
> > v3:
> > * Avoid introducing PR_MADV_SELF and defer a non-pidfd version until later.
>
> Seems like a good plan to decouple this patch from PR_MADV_SELF vs
> PIDFD_SELF decision. I am hoping to see the follow up patch as well.
PIDFD_SELF should absolutely not be a per-system call thing. It should
be generic across all pidfd based system calls similar to AT_FDCWD.
IOW, that should be in:
include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h
#define PIDFD_SELF -200
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] dup.2: Add ENOMEM to ERRORS
From: Levi Zim via B4 Relay @ 2024-09-27 6:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-man; +Cc: Linux API, Levi Zim
From: Levi Zim <rsworktech@outlook.com>
dup2 could return ENOMEM under extreme condition.
For example, when sysctl fs.nr_open=2147483584, and RLIMIT_NOFILE is also
2147483584. The following program fails with ENOMEM:
int main(){
int ret = dup2(0, 2000000000);
if (ret < 0) {
perror("dup2");
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
This ENOMEM comes from an allocation error here:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1/source/mm/util.c#L596
ENOMEM is already documented for open(2).
Signed-off-by: Levi Zim <rsworktech@outlook.com>
---
While experimenting with fs.nr_open sysctl and RLIMIT_NOFILE,
I noticed that dup(2) could return an undocumented errno ENOMEM.
This patch add ENOMEM to ERRORS in dup.2.
---
man/man2/dup.2 | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/man/man2/dup.2 b/man/man2/dup.2
index ee964a827ca062d90419c7d39f457de270d42ca3..719f0ae9e78165733cbe607bbf8a803a5d0943b4 100644
--- a/man/man2/dup.2
+++ b/man/man2/dup.2
@@ -197,6 +197,9 @@ .SH ERRORS
.B RLIMIT_NOFILE
in
.BR getrlimit (2)).
+.TP
+.B ENOMEM
+Insufficient kernel memory was available.
.SH STANDARDS
.TP
.BR dup ()
---
base-commit: 1e2d36deb2de1dbaf7084bb7dc3cb2c170cce852
change-id: 20240927-dup2-727e986e1900
Best regards,
--
Levi Zim <rsworktech@outlook.com>
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/madvise: unrestrict process_madvise() for current process
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-26 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shakeel Butt
Cc: Andrew Morton, Vlastimil Babka, Liam R . Howlett,
Suren Baghdasaryan, Arnd Bergmann, linux-api, linux-mm,
linux-kernel, Minchan Kim, Christian Brauner, pedro.falcato
In-Reply-To: <xv5qg4hfqvqzooounx57hzl4jzmfefitf3qklcdqzz7a4dufxn@v3r47r7p6ono>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 08:52:32AM GMT, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 04:10:19PM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > The process_madvise() call was introduced in commit ecb8ac8b1f14
> > ("mm/madvise: introduce process_madvise() syscall: an external memory
> > hinting API") as a means of performing madvise() operations on another
> > process.
> >
> > However, as it provides the means by which to perform multiple madvise()
> > operations in a batch via an iovec, it is useful to utilise the same
> > interface for performing operations on the current process rather than a
> > remote one.
> >
> > Commit 22af8caff7d1 ("mm/madvise: process_madvise() drop capability check
> > if same mm") removed the need for a caller invoking process_madvise() on
> > its own pidfd to possess the CAP_SYS_NICE capability, however this leaves
> > the restrictions on operation in place.
> >
> > Resolve this by only applying the restriction on operations when accessing
> > a remote process.
> >
> > Moving forward we plan to implement a simpler means of specifying this
> > condition other than needing to establish a self pidfd, perhaps in the form
> > of a sentinel pidfd.
> >
> > Also take the opportunity to refactor the system call implementation
> > abstracting the vectorised operation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
>
> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Thanks!
>
> > ---
> > v3:
> > * Avoid introducing PR_MADV_SELF and defer a non-pidfd version until later.
>
> Seems like a good plan to decouple this patch from PR_MADV_SELF vs
> PIDFD_SELF decision. I am hoping to see the follow up patch as well.
>
> thanks,
> Shakeel
>
Yes agreed, this gets an important part of the change in, and gives us room
to take our time on that side of things.
Plan right now is I will work on a sentinel solution in parallel to other
stuff and see how that goes, if it integrates well can bring it in in a
separate patch series.
Cheers, Lorenzo
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3] mm/madvise: unrestrict process_madvise() for current process
From: Shakeel Butt @ 2024-09-26 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Stoakes
Cc: Andrew Morton, Vlastimil Babka, Liam R . Howlett,
Suren Baghdasaryan, Arnd Bergmann, linux-api, linux-mm,
linux-kernel, Minchan Kim, Christian Brauner, pedro.falcato
In-Reply-To: <20240926151019.82902-1-lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 04:10:19PM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> The process_madvise() call was introduced in commit ecb8ac8b1f14
> ("mm/madvise: introduce process_madvise() syscall: an external memory
> hinting API") as a means of performing madvise() operations on another
> process.
>
> However, as it provides the means by which to perform multiple madvise()
> operations in a batch via an iovec, it is useful to utilise the same
> interface for performing operations on the current process rather than a
> remote one.
>
> Commit 22af8caff7d1 ("mm/madvise: process_madvise() drop capability check
> if same mm") removed the need for a caller invoking process_madvise() on
> its own pidfd to possess the CAP_SYS_NICE capability, however this leaves
> the restrictions on operation in place.
>
> Resolve this by only applying the restriction on operations when accessing
> a remote process.
>
> Moving forward we plan to implement a simpler means of specifying this
> condition other than needing to establish a self pidfd, perhaps in the form
> of a sentinel pidfd.
>
> Also take the opportunity to refactor the system call implementation
> abstracting the vectorised operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
> ---
> v3:
> * Avoid introducing PR_MADV_SELF and defer a non-pidfd version until later.
Seems like a good plan to decouple this patch from PR_MADV_SELF vs
PIDFD_SELF decision. I am hoping to see the follow up patch as well.
thanks,
Shakeel
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH v3] mm/madvise: unrestrict process_madvise() for current process
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-26 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Vlastimil Babka, Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan,
Arnd Bergmann, Shakeel Butt, linux-api, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
Minchan Kim, Christian Brauner, pedro.falcato
The process_madvise() call was introduced in commit ecb8ac8b1f14
("mm/madvise: introduce process_madvise() syscall: an external memory
hinting API") as a means of performing madvise() operations on another
process.
However, as it provides the means by which to perform multiple madvise()
operations in a batch via an iovec, it is useful to utilise the same
interface for performing operations on the current process rather than a
remote one.
Commit 22af8caff7d1 ("mm/madvise: process_madvise() drop capability check
if same mm") removed the need for a caller invoking process_madvise() on
its own pidfd to possess the CAP_SYS_NICE capability, however this leaves
the restrictions on operation in place.
Resolve this by only applying the restriction on operations when accessing
a remote process.
Moving forward we plan to implement a simpler means of specifying this
condition other than needing to establish a self pidfd, perhaps in the form
of a sentinel pidfd.
Also take the opportunity to refactor the system call implementation
abstracting the vectorised operation.
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
---
v3:
* Avoid introducing PR_MADV_SELF and defer a non-pidfd version until later.
v2:
* Fix silly mistake referencing unassigned mm variable.
* Add PR_MADV_SELF to architecture-specific mman headers.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/9cf0e96d-287f-4749-ba85-8414c06aa54c@lucifer.local/
v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1727106751.git.lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com/
mm/madvise.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
index 50d223ab3894..e871a72a6c32 100644
--- a/mm/madvise.c
+++ b/mm/madvise.c
@@ -1208,7 +1208,8 @@ madvise_behavior_valid(int behavior)
}
}
-static bool process_madvise_behavior_valid(int behavior)
+/* Can we invoke process_madvise() on a remote mm for the specified behavior? */
+static bool process_madvise_remote_valid(int behavior)
{
switch (behavior) {
case MADV_COLD:
@@ -1477,6 +1478,28 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(madvise, unsigned long, start, size_t, len_in, int, behavior)
return do_madvise(current->mm, start, len_in, behavior);
}
+/* Perform an madvise operation over a vector of addresses and lengths. */
+static ssize_t vector_madvise(struct mm_struct *mm, struct iov_iter *iter,
+ int behavior)
+{
+ ssize_t ret = 0;
+ size_t total_len;
+
+ total_len = iov_iter_count(iter);
+
+ while (iov_iter_count(iter)) {
+ ret = do_madvise(mm, (unsigned long)iter_iov_addr(iter),
+ iter_iov_len(iter), behavior);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ break;
+ iov_iter_advance(iter, iter_iov_len(iter));
+ }
+
+ ret = (total_len - iov_iter_count(iter)) ? : ret;
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
SYSCALL_DEFINE5(process_madvise, int, pidfd, const struct iovec __user *, vec,
size_t, vlen, int, behavior, unsigned int, flags)
{
@@ -1486,7 +1509,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(process_madvise, int, pidfd, const struct iovec __user *, vec,
struct iov_iter iter;
struct task_struct *task;
struct mm_struct *mm;
- size_t total_len;
unsigned int f_flags;
if (flags != 0) {
@@ -1504,11 +1526,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(process_madvise, int, pidfd, const struct iovec __user *, vec,
goto free_iov;
}
- if (!process_madvise_behavior_valid(behavior)) {
- ret = -EINVAL;
- goto release_task;
- }
-
/* Require PTRACE_MODE_READ to avoid leaking ASLR metadata. */
mm = mm_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_FSCREDS);
if (IS_ERR(mm)) {
@@ -1516,26 +1533,26 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(process_madvise, int, pidfd, const struct iovec __user *, vec,
goto release_task;
}
+ /*
+ * We need only perform this check if we are attempting to manipulate a
+ * remote process's address space.
+ */
+ if (mm != current->mm && !process_madvise_remote_valid(behavior)) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto release_mm;
+ }
+
/*
* Require CAP_SYS_NICE for influencing process performance. Note that
- * only non-destructive hints are currently supported.
+ * only non-destructive hints are currently supported for remote
+ * processes.
*/
if (mm != current->mm && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
ret = -EPERM;
goto release_mm;
}
- total_len = iov_iter_count(&iter);
-
- while (iov_iter_count(&iter)) {
- ret = do_madvise(mm, (unsigned long)iter_iov_addr(&iter),
- iter_iov_len(&iter), behavior);
- if (ret < 0)
- break;
- iov_iter_advance(&iter, iter_iov_len(&iter));
- }
-
- ret = (total_len - iov_iter_count(&iter)) ? : ret;
+ ret = vector_madvise(mm, &iter, behavior);
release_mm:
mmput(mm);
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] unrestrict process_madvise() for current process
From: Lorenzo Stoakes @ 2024-09-26 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Vlastimil Babka, Liam R . Howlett, Suren Baghdasaryan,
Arnd Bergmann, Shakeel Butt, linux-api, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
Minchan Kim, Richard Henderson, Ivan Kokshaysky, Matt Turner,
linux-alpha, Thomas Bogendoerfer, linux-mips,
James E . J . Bottomley, Helge Deller, linux-parisc, Chris Zankel,
Max Filippov, christian
In-Reply-To: <cover.1727176176.git.lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Hi Andrew, please drop this series, I'm going to take a different approach.
Thanks.
[snip]
^ permalink raw reply
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox