Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Checkpoint/Restore: Show in proc IDs of objects that can be shared between tasks

Andrew Morton
2011-11-18T19:07:18Z

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:24:58 +0400
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com> wrote:

> >> One of the ways for checking whether two tasks share e.g. an mm_struct is to
> >> provide some mm_struct ID of a task to its proc file. The best from the
> >> performance point of view ID is the object address in the kernel, but showing
> >> them to the userspace is not good for security reasons.
> >>
> >> Thus the object address is XOR-ed with a "random" value of the same size and
> >> then shown in proc. Providing this poison is not leaked into the userspace then
> >> ID seem to be safe. The objects for which the IDs are shown are:
> >>
> >> * all namespaces living in /proc/pid/ns/
> >> * open files (shown in /proc/pid/fdinfo/)
> >> * objects, that can be shared with CLONE_XXX flags (except for namespaces)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
> >
> > It doesn't *sound* terribly secure. There might be clever ways in
> > which userspace can determine the secret mask, dunno. We should ask
> > evil-minded security people to review this proposal.
>
> Can you please propose some particular persons we should put in Cc for this thread?

Perhaps Vasily could review this proposal for us?

> > Why not simply use a sequence number, increment it each time we create
> > an mm_struct? On could use an idr tree to prevent duplicates but it
> > would be simpler and sufficient to make it 64-bit and we never have to
> > worry about wraparound causing duplicates.
>
> IDR is not OK for me, since we'll have to call it on every fork() thus penalizing
> its performance.

fork() is a pretty heavyweight operation so that won't hurt noticeably.
However it sounds like you're presented with the same issue for more
frequently-created objects.

> 64bit increasing numbers are perfectly fine with me (I did this
> in the 1st proposal, but put the ID on slub to save space - 64bits per page, not per
> object).
>
> But I have one question regarding storing these long IDs per-object. Are we OK with
> adding 64-bit field on *all* the structures we need for this? I'm mostly worried
> about these small ones like sem_undo_list and fs_struct.

OK. Using the object's kernel virtual address is certainly very
attractive.

It is the case that we're causing difficulty with this longer-term plan
to make c/r available to unprivileged processes? Because it's OK to
expose kernel addresses to CAP_SYS_ADMIN (or similar) tasks (isn't it?).