lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] bpf: Make sure that ->comm does not change under us.
On 10/16/2017 10:55 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am Montag, 16. Oktober 2017, 22:50:43 CEST schrieb Daniel Borkmann:
>>> struct task_struct *task = current;
>>>
>>> + task_lock(task);
>>>
>>> strncpy(buf, task->comm, size);
>>>
>>> + task_unlock(task);
>>
>> Wouldn't this potentially lead to a deadlock? E.g. you attach yourself
>> to task_lock() / spin_lock() / etc, and then the BPF prog triggers the
>> bpf_get_current_comm() taking the lock again ...
>
> Yes, but doesn't the same apply to the use case when I attach to strncpy()
> and run bpf_get_current_comm()?

You mean due to recursion? In that case trace_call_bpf() would bail out
due to the bpf_prog_active counter.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-16 23:03    [W:0.441 / U:0.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site