From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: wezhang@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Q: sys_personality() && misc oddities
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:17:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100525141720.GA2253@redhat.com> (raw)
Hello.
This code is really old, and I do not know whom should I ask. And,
despite the fact it is really trivial, I have no idea how to fix it.
And even more, I am not sure it actually needs fixes. I'd better ask
the questions. Please help ;)
First of all, task_struct->personality is "int", but sys_personality()
takes "long". This means that every comparison or assignment inside of
sys_personality() paths is not right.
Probably we need something like this trivial patch
--- x/kernel/exec_domain.c
+++ x/kernel/exec_domain.c
@@ -192,7 +192,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(personality, u_long, per
{
u_long old = current->personality;
- if (personality != 0xffffffff) {
+ if (personality > 0xffffffff)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ else if (personality != 0xffffffff) {
set_personality(personality);
if (current->personality != personality)
return -EINVAL;
?
Or, perhaps we shouldn't allow personality >= int32_max = 0x7ffffff ?
Otherwise, on 32bit machine the value returned to the user-space can
look like -ESOMETHING.
Even on x86_64, in user-space it is declared as
int personality(unsigned long persona);
if the kernel returns the "large" old it looks negative to the user-space,
and the test-case thinks that the syscall failed but errno is not set.
This is the actual reason for the question. I am really surprized I
do not know how to close the redhat-internal bugzilla entry, the
problem is very trivial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there are other oddities I can't understand. Let's forget about
the sizeof(task_struct->personality), let's suppose it is "long" too.
And note that is was long before 97dc32cdb1b53832801159d5f634b41aad9d0a23
which did s/long/int/ to reduce the sizeof task_struct.
__set_personality(). What is the point to check
ep == current_thread_info()->exec_domain ? This buys nothing afaics.
IOW, it could be simplified:
int __set_personality(u_long personality)
{
struct exec_domain *oep = current_thread_info()->exec_domain;
current_thread_info()->exec_domain = lookup_exec_domain(personality);
current->personality = personality;
module_put(oep->module);
return 0;
}
Now let's look at the caller, sys_personality()
set_personality(personality);
if (current->personality != personality)
return -EINVAL;
but __set_personality() always sets current->personality = personality,
what is the point to check equality?
IOW, when we should return -EINVAL? Perhaps, lookup_exec_domain() should
return NULL instead of default_exec_domain when the search in exec_domains
fails? And probably we shouldn't change task->personality/exec_domain in
this case? It is really strange that sys_personality() can return -EINVAL
but change ->personality.
But this can probably break exec. alpha does set_personality(PER_OSF4)
but I do not see the corresponding register_exec_domain(). On the other
hand, I do not understand why it puts PER_OSF4 into PER_MASK. PER_OSF4
is only used by sys_osf_readv/sys_osf_writev.
Thanks,
Oleg.
next reply other threads:[~2010-05-25 14:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-25 14:17 Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2010-05-25 19:33 ` Q: sys_personality() && misc oddities Roland McGrath
2010-05-26 12:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-26 20:31 ` Roland McGrath
2010-05-26 20:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-05-27 15:35 ` [PATCH 0/3] (Was: Q: sys_personality() && misc oddities) Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-27 15:35 ` [PATCH 1/3] sys_personality: validate personality before set_personality() Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-27 16:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-05-27 17:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-27 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-05-27 18:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-27 18:18 ` Andi Kleen
2010-05-28 19:11 ` [PATCH 0/2] sys_personality fixes v2 Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-28 19:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] change sys_personality() to accept "unsigned int" instead of u_long Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-28 19:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] remove the bogus checks in sys_personality()->__set_personality() path Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-28 19:28 ` [PATCH 0/2] sys_personality fixes v2 Linus Torvalds
2010-05-28 19:58 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-05-28 19:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-27 15:36 ` [PATCH 2/3] sys_personality: make sure (int)personality >= 0 Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-27 20:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-05-28 19:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-27 15:36 ` [PATCH 3/3] __set_personality: no need to check the old ->exec_domain Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100525141720.GA2253@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=wezhang@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).