mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
To: Nelson Elhage <nelhage@ksplice.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	security@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: Prevent deadlock through unsafe ->f_op->poll() calls.
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 15:19:58 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1102061517370.3189@localhost6.localdomain6> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110206224508.GA13579@ksplice.com>

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011, Nelson Elhage wrote:

> Suppose thread A does epoll_ctl(e1, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, e2, evt) concurrently with
> thread B doing epoll_ctl(e2, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, e1, evt).
> 
> Since you do the recursive scan before grabbing ep->mtx, I think there is
> nothing to prevent the two scans from both succeeding, followed by the two
> inserts, so you end up with a cycle anyways.

Good point!


> One possibility is grabbing epmutex, or another global mutex, for both the scan
> and the duration of inserting one epoll fd onto another. That's really
> heavyweight, but maybe inserting an epoll fd onto another epoll fd is rare
> enough that it's Ok.

Yes, that'd be fine, since that is not a fast path.


Signed-off-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>


- Davide


---
 fs/eventpoll.c |   96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6.mod/fs/eventpoll.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.mod.orig/fs/eventpoll.c	2011-02-06 11:42:38.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.mod/fs/eventpoll.c	2011-02-06 15:17:25.000000000 -0800
@@ -224,6 +224,9 @@
  */
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(epmutex);
 
+/* Used to check for epoll file descriptor inclusion loops */
+static struct nested_calls poll_loop_ncalls;
+
 /* Used for safe wake up implementation */
 static struct nested_calls poll_safewake_ncalls;
 
@@ -592,7 +595,6 @@
 	 */
 	for (rbp = rb_first(&ep->rbr); rbp; rbp = rb_next(rbp)) {
 		epi = rb_entry(rbp, struct epitem, rbn);
-
 		ep_unregister_pollwait(ep, epi);
 	}
 
@@ -711,7 +713,6 @@
 
 	while (!list_empty(lsthead)) {
 		epi = list_first_entry(lsthead, struct epitem, fllink);
-
 		ep = epi->ep;
 		list_del_init(&epi->fllink);
 		mutex_lock(&ep->mtx);
@@ -1198,6 +1199,82 @@
 	return res;
 }
 
+/**
+ * ep_loop_check_proc - Callback function to be passed to the @ep_call_nested()
+ *                      API, to verify that adding an epoll file inside another
+ *                      epoll structure, does not violate the constraints, in
+ *                      terms of closed loops, or too deep chains (which can
+ *                      result in excessive stack usage).
+ *
+ * @priv: Pointer to the epoll file to be currently checked.
+ * @cookie: Original cookie for this call. This is the top-of-the-chain epoll
+ *          data structure pointer.
+ * @call_nests: Current dept of the @ep_call_nested() call stack.
+ *
+ * Returns: Returns zero if adding the epoll @file inside current epoll
+ *          structure @ep does not violate the constraints, or -1 otherwise.
+ */
+static int ep_loop_check_proc(void *priv, void *cookie, int call_nests)
+{
+	int error = 0;
+	struct file *file = priv;
+	struct eventpoll *ep = file->private_data;
+	struct rb_node *rbp;
+	struct epitem *epi;
+
+	mutex_lock(&ep->mtx);
+	for (rbp = rb_first(&ep->rbr); rbp; rbp = rb_next(rbp)) {
+		epi = rb_entry(rbp, struct epitem, rbn);
+		if (unlikely(is_file_epoll(epi->ffd.file))) {
+			error = ep_call_nested(&poll_loop_ncalls, EP_MAX_NESTS,
+					       ep_loop_check_proc, epi->ffd.file,
+					       ep, current);
+			if (error != 0)
+				break;
+		}
+	}
+	mutex_unlock(&ep->mtx);
+
+	return error;
+}
+
+/**
+ * ep_loop_check - Performs a check to verify that adding an epoll file (@file)
+ *                 another epoll file (represented by @ep) does not create
+ *                 closed loops or too deep chains.
+ *
+ * @ep: Pointer to the epoll private data structure.
+ * @file: Pointer to the epoll file to be checked.
+ *
+ * Returns: Returns zero if adding the epoll @file inside current epoll
+ *          structure @ep does not violate the constraints, or -1 otherwise.
+ */
+static int ep_loop_check(struct eventpoll *ep, struct file *file)
+{
+	int error;
+
+	/*
+	 * It needs to grab the @epmutex lock, before doing this.
+	 * This because two concurrent @ep_loop_check() might be going on,
+	 * resulting in a closed loop due to both @ep_loop_check() functions
+	 * succeeding:
+	 *
+	 * e1 = epoll_create();
+	 * e2 = epoll_create();
+	 *
+	 * THREAD-0                            THREAD-1
+	 *
+	 * epoll_ctl(e1, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, e2)    epoll_ctl(e2, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, e1)
+	 *
+	 */
+	mutex_lock(&epmutex);
+	error = ep_call_nested(&poll_loop_ncalls, EP_MAX_NESTS,
+			       ep_loop_check_proc, file, ep, current);
+	mutex_unlock(&epmutex);
+
+	return error;
+}
+
 /*
  * Open an eventpoll file descriptor.
  */
@@ -1287,6 +1364,15 @@
 	 */
 	ep = file->private_data;
 
+	/*
+	 * When we insert an epoll file descriptor, inside another epoll file
+	 * descriptor, there is the change of creating closed loops, which are
+	 * better be handled here, than in more critical paths.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(is_file_epoll(tfile) && op == EPOLL_CTL_ADD &&
+		     ep_loop_check(ep, tfile) != 0))
+		goto error_tgt_fput;
+
 	mutex_lock(&ep->mtx);
 
 	/*
@@ -1441,6 +1527,12 @@
 		EP_ITEM_COST;
 	BUG_ON(max_user_watches < 0);
 
+	/*
+	 * Initialize the structure used to perform epoll file descriptor
+	 * inclusion loops checks.
+	 */
+	ep_nested_calls_init(&poll_loop_ncalls);
+
 	/* Initialize the structure used to perform safe poll wait head wake ups */
 	ep_nested_calls_init(&poll_safewake_ncalls);
 

  reply	other threads:[~2011-02-06 23:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-02-06  1:08 Nelson Elhage
2011-02-06  3:22 ` Davide Libenzi
2011-02-06 20:56   ` Davide Libenzi
2011-02-06 22:45     ` Nelson Elhage
2011-02-06 23:19       ` Davide Libenzi [this message]
2011-02-07 23:15         ` Nelson Elhage
2011-02-11  1:27           ` Davide Libenzi
2011-02-12 19:03             ` [PATCH] epoll: Prevent creating circular epoll structures Nelson Elhage
2011-02-14 21:56               ` Davide Libenzi
2011-02-14 22:47                 ` Andrew Morton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.00.1102061517370.3189@localhost6.localdomain6 \
    --to=davidel@xmailserver.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nelhage@ksplice.com \
    --cc=security@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®