lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] c/r: prctl: Add ability to set new mm_struct::exe_file v3
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:03:03PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:26:23PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/08, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Oleg, could you please take a look once you get a minute (no urgency).
> >
> > Add Matt. I won't touch the text below to keep the patch intact.
>
> Thanks for CC'ing Matt, Oleg (I forgot, sorry).
>
> >
> > With this change
> >
> > down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > if (mm->num_exe_file_vmas) {
> > fput(mm->exe_file);
> > mm->exe_file = exe_file;
> > exe_file = NULL;
> > } else
> > set_mm_exe_file(mm, exe_file);
> > up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >
> > I simply do not understand what mm->num_exe_file_vmas means after
> > PR_SET_MM_EXE_FILE.

I think it should fail if the num_exe_file_vmas is not 0 when
PR_SET_MM_EXE_FILE is used. It's simple, keeps things clear, might
catch userspace bugs (harder to accidentally leave a mapping of the original
executable), and could avoid kernel bugs too.

> >
> > I think that you should do
> >
> > down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > if (mm->num_exe_file_vmas) {
> > fput(mm->exe_file);
> > mm->exe_file = exe_file;
> > exe_file = NULL;
> > }
> > up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >
> > to keep the current "mm->exe_file goes away after the final
> > unmap(MAP_EXECUTABLE)" logic.
> >
> > OK, may be this doesn't work in c/r case because you are actually
> > going to remove the old mappings? But in this case the new exe_file
> > will go away anyway, afaics PR_SET_MM_EXE_FILE is called when you
> > still have the old mappings.
>
> Yes, exactly, I need to remove old mappings first (because VMAs
> we're about to restore may intersect with current map the host
> program has). And yes, once they all are removed I don't have
> /proc/pid/exe anymore. That's why I need num_exe_file_vmas == 0
> case.
>
> When I setup new exe_file with num_exe_file_vmas = 0, this reference
> to a file brings /proc/pid/exe back to live (and when process exiting
> it'll call set_mm_exe_file(mm, NULL) and the new exe_file will be dropped,
> so no leak here).

Makes sense, I think.

> > And I don't think the unconditional
> >
> > down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > set_mm_exe_file(mm, exe_file);
> > up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >
> > is 100% right, this clears ->num_exe_file_vmas. This means that
> > (if you still have the old mapping) the new exe_file can go away
> > after added_exe_file_vma() + removed_exe_file_vma(). Normally this
> > should happen, but afaics this is possible. Note that even, say,
> > mprotect() can trigger added_exe_file_vma().
> >
>
> Wait, Oleg, I'm confused, in case if there *is* exitsting VM_EXECUTABLEs
> then we jump into first banch and simply replace old exe_file.

What happens if multiple prctl calls are made? We'll have a mix of N
executable files that've been mapped n_i times. I think we're better off
just returning an error in that case -- -EBUSY or something.

> If there is no VM_EXECUTABLEs, then we simply setup new exe_file
> and num_exe_file_vmas remains zero.

Which is fine.

Cheers,
-Matt



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-09 22:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site