kernel/fork.c | 2 +- kernel/pid.c | 7 ++++--- kernel/pid_namespace.c | 2 +- 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Suppress syzbot reports by annotating these accesses using
READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE().
Reported-by: syzbot+adcaa842b762a1762e7d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+fab52e3459fa2f95df57@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+0718f65353d72efaac1e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>
---
kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
kernel/pid.c | 7 ++++---
kernel/pid_namespace.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index c4b26cd8998b..1966ddea150d 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -2584,7 +2584,7 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
rseq_fork(p, clone_flags);
/* Don't start children in a dying pid namespace */
- if (unlikely(!(ns_of_pid(pid)->pid_allocated & PIDNS_ADDING))) {
+ if (unlikely(!(READ_ONCE(ns_of_pid(pid)->pid_allocated) & PIDNS_ADDING))) {
retval = -ENOMEM;
goto bad_fork_core_free;
}
diff --git a/kernel/pid.c b/kernel/pid.c
index 4ac2ce46817f..47e74457572f 100644
--- a/kernel/pid.c
+++ b/kernel/pid.c
@@ -122,7 +122,8 @@ void free_pid(struct pid *pid)
for (i = 0; i <= pid->level; i++) {
struct upid *upid = pid->numbers + i;
struct pid_namespace *ns = upid->ns;
- switch (--ns->pid_allocated) {
+ WRITE_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated, READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) - 1);
+ switch (READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated)) {
case 2:
case 1:
/* When all that is left in the pid namespace
@@ -271,13 +272,13 @@ struct pid *alloc_pid(struct pid_namespace *ns, pid_t *set_tid,
upid = pid->numbers + ns->level;
idr_preload(GFP_KERNEL);
spin_lock(&pidmap_lock);
- if (!(ns->pid_allocated & PIDNS_ADDING))
+ if (!(READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) & PIDNS_ADDING))
goto out_unlock;
pidfs_add_pid(pid);
for ( ; upid >= pid->numbers; --upid) {
/* Make the PID visible to find_pid_ns. */
idr_replace(&upid->ns->idr, pid, upid->nr);
- upid->ns->pid_allocated++;
+ WRITE_ONCE(upid->ns->pid_allocated, READ_ONCE(upid->ns->pid_allocated) + 1);
}
spin_unlock(&pidmap_lock);
idr_preload_end();
diff --git a/kernel/pid_namespace.c b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
index 7098ed44e717..148f7789d6f3 100644
--- a/kernel/pid_namespace.c
+++ b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
@@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ void zap_pid_ns_processes(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns)
*/
for (;;) {
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
- if (pid_ns->pid_allocated == init_pids)
+ if (READ_ONCE(pid_ns->pid_allocated) == init_pids)
break;
schedule();
}
--
2.47.1
On 04/23, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
>
> Suppress syzbot reports by annotating these accesses using
> READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE().
...
> --- a/kernel/pid.c
> +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> @@ -122,7 +122,8 @@ void free_pid(struct pid *pid)
> for (i = 0; i <= pid->level; i++) {
> struct upid *upid = pid->numbers + i;
> struct pid_namespace *ns = upid->ns;
> - switch (--ns->pid_allocated) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated, READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) - 1);
> + switch (READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated)) {
I keep forgetting how kcsan works, but we don't need
READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) under pidmap_lock?
Same for other functions which read/modify ->pid_allocated with
this lock held.
Oleg.
April 23, 2025 at 21:51, "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/23, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
>
> >
> > Suppress syzbot reports by annotating these accesses using
> >
> > READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE().
> >
>
> ...
>
> >
> > --- a/kernel/pid.c
> >
> > +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> >
> > @@ -122,7 +122,8 @@ void free_pid(struct pid *pid)
> >
> > for (i = 0; i <= pid->level; i++) {
> >
> > struct upid *upid = pid->numbers + i;
> >
> > struct pid_namespace *ns = upid->ns;
> >
> > - switch (--ns->pid_allocated) {
> >
> > + WRITE_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated, READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) - 1);
> >
> > + switch (READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated)) {
> >
>
> I keep forgetting how kcsan works, but we don't need
>
> READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) under pidmap_lock?
>
> Same for other functions which read/modify ->pid_allocated with
>
> this lock held.
>
> Oleg.
>
However, not all places that read/write pid_allocated are locked,
for example:
https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/pid_namespace.c#n271
https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/fork.c#n2602
So, in fact, the pidmap_lock is not effective. And if we were to add locks
to all these places, it would be too heavy.
There's no actual impact on usage without locks, so I think it might be more
suitable to add these macros, KASAN can recognize READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE
and suppress warnings.
Thanks.
On 04/23, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
>
> April 23, 2025 at 21:51, "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > On 04/23, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Suppress syzbot reports by annotating these accesses using
> > >
> > > READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE().
> > >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/pid.c
> > >
> > > +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> > >
> > > @@ -122,7 +122,8 @@ void free_pid(struct pid *pid)
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i <= pid->level; i++) {
> > >
> > > struct upid *upid = pid->numbers + i;
> > >
> > > struct pid_namespace *ns = upid->ns;
> > >
> > > - switch (--ns->pid_allocated) {
> > >
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated, READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) - 1);
> > >
> > > + switch (READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated)) {
> > >
> >
> > I keep forgetting how kcsan works, but we don't need
> >
> > READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) under pidmap_lock?
> >
> > Same for other functions which read/modify ->pid_allocated with
> >
> > this lock held.
> >
> > Oleg.
> >
>
> However, not all places that read/write pid_allocated are locked,
> for example:
> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/pid_namespace.c#n271
> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/fork.c#n2602
>
> So, in fact, the pidmap_lock is not effective. And if we were to add locks
> to all these places, it would be too heavy.
It seems you misunderstood me. I didn't argue with the lockless READ_ONCE()s
outside of pidmap_lock.
Oleg.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 06:38:18PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/23, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> >
> > April 23, 2025 at 21:51, "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On 04/23, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Suppress syzbot reports by annotating these accesses using
> > > >
> > > > READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE().
> > > >
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- a/kernel/pid.c
> > > >
> > > > +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> > > >
> > > > @@ -122,7 +122,8 @@ void free_pid(struct pid *pid)
> > > >
> > > > for (i = 0; i <= pid->level; i++) {
> > > >
> > > > struct upid *upid = pid->numbers + i;
> > > >
> > > > struct pid_namespace *ns = upid->ns;
> > > >
> > > > - switch (--ns->pid_allocated) {
> > > >
> > > > + WRITE_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated, READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) - 1);
> > > >
> > > > + switch (READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated)) {
> > > >
> > >
> > > I keep forgetting how kcsan works, but we don't need
> > >
> > > READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) under pidmap_lock?
> > >
> > > Same for other functions which read/modify ->pid_allocated with
> > >
> > > this lock held.
> > >
> > > Oleg.
> > >
> >
> > However, not all places that read/write pid_allocated are locked,
> > for example:
> > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/pid_namespace.c#n271
> > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/fork.c#n2602
> >
> > So, in fact, the pidmap_lock is not effective. And if we were to add locks
> > to all these places, it would be too heavy.
>
> It seems you misunderstood me. I didn't argue with the lockless READ_ONCE()s
> outside of pidmap_lock.
Agreed. We should only add those annotations where they're really
needed (someone once taught me ;).
April 24, 2025 at 17:38, "Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 06:38:18PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> >
> > On 04/23, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> >
> > April 23, 2025 at 21:51, "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On 04/23, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Suppress syzbot reports by annotating these accesses using
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE().
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > --- a/kernel/pid.c
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > @@ -122,7 +122,8 @@ void free_pid(struct pid *pid)
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > for (i = 0; i <= pid->level; i++) {
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > struct upid *upid = pid->numbers + i;
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > struct pid_namespace *ns = upid->ns;
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > - switch (--ns->pid_allocated) {
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > + WRITE_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated, READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) - 1);
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > + switch (READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated)) {
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I keep forgetting how kcsan works, but we don't need
> >
> > >
> >
> > > READ_ONCE(ns->pid_allocated) under pidmap_lock?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Same for other functions which read/modify ->pid_allocated with
> >
> > >
> >
> > > this lock held.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Oleg.
> >
> > >
> >
> > However, not all places that read/write pid_allocated are locked,
> >
> > for example:
> >
> > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/pid_namespace.c#n271
> >
> > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/fork.c#n2602
> >
> > So, in fact, the pidmap_lock is not effective. And if we were to add locks
> >
> > to all these places, it would be too heavy.
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems you misunderstood me. I didn't argue with the lockless READ_ONCE()s
> >
> > outside of pidmap_lock.
> >
>
> Agreed. We should only add those annotations where they're really
>
> needed (someone once taught me ;).
>
Thank you for your suggestion, it make sense to me.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 02:33:37PM +0000, Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev> wrote: > However, not all places that read/write pid_allocated are locked, > for example: > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/pid_namespace.c#n271 > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/fork.c#n2602 > > So, in fact, the pidmap_lock is not effective. And if we were to add locks > to all these places, it would be too heavy. > > There's no actual impact on usage without locks, so I think it might be more > suitable to add these macros, KASAN can recognize READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE > and suppress warnings. Wouldn't it be nicer to add data_race() to mark those places where the race (presumably) doesn't matter? (Instead of _ONCE'ing places that are under the lock.) 0.02€, Michal
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.