lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 00/11] extend task comm from 16 to 24
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 10:07 PM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon 2021-11-01 06:04:08, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > There're many truncated kthreads in the kernel, which may make trouble
> > for the user, for example, the user can't get detailed device
> > information from the task comm.
> >
> > This patchset tries to improve this problem fundamentally by extending
> > the task comm size from 16 to 24, which is a very simple way.
> >
> > In order to do that, we have to do some cleanups first.
> >
> > 1. Make the copy of task comm always safe no matter what the task
> > comm size is. For example,
> >
> > Unsafe Safe
> > strlcpy strscpy_pad
> > strncpy strscpy_pad
> > bpf_probe_read_kernel bpf_probe_read_kernel_str
> > bpf_core_read_str
> > bpf_get_current_comm
> > perf_event__prepare_comm
> > prctl(2)
> >
> > After this step, the comm size change won't make any trouble to the
> > kernel or the in-tree tools for example perf, BPF programs.
> >
> > 2. Cleanup some old hard-coded 16
> > Actually we don't need to convert all of them to TASK_COMM_LEN or
> > TASK_COMM_LEN_16, what we really care about is if the convert can
> > make the code more reasonable or easier to understand. For
> > example, some in-tree tools read the comm from sched:sched_switch
> > tracepoint, as it is derived from the kernel, we'd better make them
> > consistent with the kernel.
>
> The above changes make sense even if we do not extend comm[] array in
> task_struct.
>
>
> > 3. Extend the task comm size from 16 to 24
> > task_struct is growing rather regularly by 8 bytes. This size change
> > should be acceptable. We used to think about extending the size for
> > CONFIG_BASE_FULL only, but that would be a burden for maintenance
> > and introduce code complexity.
> >
> > 4. Print a warning if the kthread comm is still truncated.
> >
> > 5. What will happen to the out-of-tree tools after this change?
> > If the tool get task comm through kernel API, for example prctl(2),
> > bpf_get_current_comm() and etc, then it doesn't matter how large the
> > user buffer is, because it will always get a string with a nul
> > terminator. While if it gets the task comm through direct string copy,
> > the user tool must make sure the copied string has a nul terminator
> > itself. As TASK_COMM_LEN is not exposed to userspace, there's no
> > reason that it must require a fixed-size task comm.
>
> The amount of code that has to be updated is really high. I am pretty
> sure that there are more potential buffer overflows left.
>
> You did not commented on the concerns in the thread
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAADnVQKm0Ljj-w5PbkAu1ugLFnZRRPt-Vk-J7AhXxDD5xVompA@mail.gmail.com/
>

I thought Steven[1] and Kees[2] have already clearly explained why we
do it like that, so I didn't give any more words on it.

[1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211025170503.59830a43@gandalf.local.home/
[2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/202110251406.56F87A3522@keescook/

> Several people suggested to use a more conservative approach.

Yes, they are Al[3] and Alexei[4].

[3]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YVkmaSUxbg%2FJtBHb@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk/
[4]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAADnVQKm0Ljj-w5PbkAu1ugLFnZRRPt-Vk-J7AhXxDD5xVompA@mail.gmail.com/

> I mean
> to keep comm[16] as is and add a new pointer to the full name. The buffer
> for the long name might be dynamically allocated only when needed.
>

That would add a new allocation in the fork() for the threads with a long name.
I'm not sure if it is worth it.

> The pointer might be either in task_struct or struct kthread. It might
> be used the same way as the full name stored by workqueue kthreads.
>

If we decide to do it like that, I think we'd better add it in
task_struct, then it will work for all tasks.

> The advantage of the separate pointer:
>
> + would work for names longer than 32
> + will not open security holes in code
>

Yes, those are the advantages. And the disadvantage of it is:

- new allocation in fork()


--
Thanks
Yafang

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-01 15:36    [W:1.778 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site