[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110907151323.613e62e7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:13:23 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Nathan Lynch
<ntl@...ox.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Oren Laadan
<orenl@...columbia.edu>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Glauber
Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs, proc: Introduce the /proc/<pid>/map_files/
directory v6
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 01:53:29 +0400
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 03:23:01PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 02:33 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 09:29:52PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > > > I agree with you. I don't think that showing system-global debug
> > > > information to all users by default is the right thing. But some people
> > > > doesn't agree with this point of view:
> > > >
> > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1108378
> > >
> > > Yeap, I know there are two sides of the discussion but if one takes
> > > the position that hiding such global debug info is more harmful, it's
> > > only crazier to hide such information from each individual users of
> > > the said global facility. So, let's just forget about information
> > > leak via freeing or not freeing here. It's the wrong battle field.
> >
> > Andrew, are you OK with closing the hole with pid_no_revalidate()
> > and 0600 /proc/slabinfo? If so, I feel I have to start this discussion
> > with people participating in the discussion above: Theodore, Dan, Linus, etc.
I fell asleep a long time ago and don't know what pid_no_revalidate()
and slabinfo permissions have to do with this. Perhaps summarising the
issues in the changelog would be appropriate, dunno.
> > By Andrew Morton
> >
> > But do we *really* need to do it in two passes? Avoiding the temporary
> > storage would involve doing more work under mmap_sem, and a put_filp()
> > under mmap_sem might be problematic.
>
> I fear we still need to use two passes in proc_map_files_readdir, I found no way
> to escape lockdep complains when doing all work in one pass with mmap_sem taken.
> The /maps does the same thing -- ie it fills maps file with mmap_sem taken to produce
> robust data.
The code's using three passes.
> And I'm not really sure what you mean with problematic put_filp?
I was thinking fput(), which can do a hell of a lot of stuff if it's
the final put on the inode.
>
> ...
>
> +static int proc_map_files_readdir(struct file *filp, void *dirent, filldir_t filldir)
> +{
> + struct dentry *dentry = filp->f_path.dentry;
> + struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> + struct task_struct *task;
> + struct mm_struct *mm;
> + ino_t ino;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = -ENOENT;
> + task = get_proc_task(inode);
> + if (!task)
> + goto out_no_task;
> +
> + ret = -EPERM;
> + if (!ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ))
> + goto out;
> +
> + ret = 0;
> + switch (filp->f_pos) {
> + case 0:
> + ino = inode->i_ino;
> + if (filldir(dirent, ".", 1, 0, ino, DT_DIR) < 0)
> + goto out;
> + filp->f_pos++;
> + case 1:
> + ino = parent_ino(dentry);
> + if (filldir(dirent, "..", 2, 1, ino, DT_DIR) < 0)
> + goto out;
> + filp->f_pos++;
> + default:
> + {
> + unsigned long nr_files, used, pos, i;
> + struct flex_array *fa = NULL;
> + struct map_files_info info;
> + struct map_files_info *p;
> +
> + mm = get_task_mm(task);
> + if (!mm)
> + goto out;
> + down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> +
> + nr_files = 0;
> + used = 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * We need two passes here:
> + *
> + * 1) Collect vmas of mapped files with mmap_sem taken
> + * 2) Release mmap_sem and instantiate entries
> + *
> + * otherwise we get lockdep complained, since filldir()
> + * routine might require mmap_sem taken in might_fault().
> + */
> +
> + for (vma = mm->mmap; vma; vma = vma->vm_next) {
> + if (vma->vm_file)
> + nr_files++;
> + }
> +
> + if (nr_files) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + fa = flex_array_alloc(sizeof(info), nr_files, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!fa)
> + goto err;
> + if (flex_array_prealloc(fa, 0, nr_files, GFP_KERNEL))
> + goto err;
> + for (vma = mm->mmap, pos = 2; vma; vma = vma->vm_next) {
> + if (!vma->vm_file)
> + continue;
> + if (++pos <= filp->f_pos)
> + continue;
> +
> + get_file(vma->vm_file);
> + info.file = vma->vm_file;
> + info.len = snprintf(info.name, sizeof(info.name),
> + "%lx-%lx", vma->vm_start,
> + vma->vm_end);
> + if (flex_array_put(fa, used, &info, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> + /*
> + * This must never happen on preallocated array,
> + * but just to be sure.
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + put_filp(vma->vm_file);
> + goto err;
> + }
> + used++;
> + }
> + ret = 0;
> + }
> +err:
> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < used && !ret; i++) {
The "&& !ret" is unneeded?
> + p = flex_array_get(fa, i);
> + ret = proc_fill_cache(filp, dirent, filldir,
> + p->name, p->len,
> + proc_map_files_instantiate,
> + task, p->file);
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> + filp->f_pos++;
> + put_filp(p->file);
> + }
> +
> + for (; i < used; i++) {
> + p = flex_array_get(fa, i);
> + put_filp(p->file);
> + }
Still unclear why we need the third loop.
> + if (fa)
> + flex_array_free(fa);
> +
> + mmput(mm);
> + }
> + }
> +
> +out:
> + put_task_struct(task);
> +out_no_task:
> + return ret;
> +}
>
> ...
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
