On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:28:20PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 03:05:20PM +0100, Matt Redfearn wrote:
>> >> Commit 6d7964a722af ("kmod: throttle kmod thread limit") which was
>> >> merged in v4.13-rc1 broke this behaviour since the recursive modprobe is
>> >> no longer caught, it just ends up waiting indefinitely for the kmod_wq
>> >> wait queue. Hence the kernel appears to hang silently when starting
>> >> userspace.
>> >
>> > Indeed, the recursive issue were no longer expected to exist.
>>
>> Errr, yeah, recursive binfmt loads can still happen.
>>
>> > The *old* implementation would also prevent a set of binaries to daisy chain
>> > a set of 50 different binaries which require different binfmt loaders. The
>> > current implementation enables this and we'd just wait. There's a bound to
>> > the number of binfmd loaders though, so this would be bounded. If however
>> > a 2nd loader loaded the first binary we'd run into the same issue I think.
>> >
>> > If we can't think of a good way to resolve this we'll just have to revert
>> > 6d7964a722af for now.
>>
>> The weird but "normal" recursive case is usually a script calling a
>> script calling a misc format. Getting a chain of modprobes running,
>> though, seems unlikely. I *think* Matt's patch is okay, but I agree,
>> it'd be better for the request_module() to fail.
>
> In that case how about we just have each waiter only wait max X seconds,
> if the number of concurrent ongoing modprobe calls hasn't reduced by
> a single digit in X seconds we give up on request_module() for the
> module and clearly indicate what happened.
>
> Matt, can you test?
>
> Note I've used wait_event_killable_timeout() to only accept SIGKILL
> for now. I've seen issues wit SIGCHILD and at modprobe this could
> even be a bigger issue, so this would restrict the signals received
> *only* to SIGKILL.
>
> It would be good to come up with a simple test case for this in
> tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh
>
> Luis
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/wait.h b/include/linux/wait.h
> index 5b74e36c0ca8..dc19880c02f5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/wait.h
> +++ b/include/linux/wait.h
> @@ -757,6 +757,43 @@ extern int do_wait_intr_irq(wait_queue_head_t *, wait_queue_entry_t *);
> __ret; \
> })
>
> +#define __wait_event_killable_timeout(wq_head, condition, timeout) \
> + ___wait_event(wq_head, ___wait_cond_timeout(condition), \
> + TASK_KILLABLE, 0, timeout, \
> + __ret = schedule_timeout(__ret))
> +
> +/**
> + * wait_event_killable_timeout - sleep until a condition gets true or a timeout elapses
> + * @wq_head: the waitqueue to wait on
> + * @condition: a C expression for the event to wait for
> + * @timeout: timeout, in jiffies
> + *
> + * The process is put to sleep (TASK_KILLABLE) until the
> + * @condition evaluates to true or a kill signal is received.
> + * The @condition is checked each time the waitqueue @wq_head is woken up.
> + *
> + * wake_up() has to be called after changing any variable that could
> + * change the result of the wait condition.
> + *
> + * Returns:
> + * 0 if the @condition evaluated to %false after the @timeout elapsed,
> + * 1 if the @condition evaluated to %true after the @timeout elapsed,
> + * the remaining jiffies (at least 1) if the @condition evaluated
> + * to %true before the @timeout elapsed, or -%ERESTARTSYS if it was
> + * interrupted by a kill signal.
> + *
> + * Only kill signals interrupt this process.
> + */
> +#define wait_event_killable_timeout(wq_head, condition, timeout) \
> +({ \
> + long __ret = timeout; \
> + might_sleep(); \
> + if (!___wait_cond_timeout(condition)) \
> + __ret = __wait_event_killable_timeout(wq_head, \
> + condition, timeout); \
> + __ret; \
> +})
> +
>
> #define __wait_event_lock_irq(wq_head, condition, lock, cmd) \
> (void)___wait_event(wq_head, condition, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, 0, 0, \
> diff --git a/kernel/kmod.c b/kernel/kmod.c
> index 6d016c5d97c8..1b5f7bada8d2 100644
> --- a/kernel/kmod.c
> +++ b/kernel/kmod.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,13 @@ static atomic_t kmod_concurrent_max = ATOMIC_INIT(MAX_KMOD_CONCURRENT);
> static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(kmod_wq);
>
> /*
> + * If modprobe can't be called after this time we assume its very likely
> + * your userspace has created a recursive dependency, and we'll have no
> + * option but to fail.
> + */
> +#define MAX_KMOD_TIMEOUT 5
Would this mean slow (swappy) systems could start failing modprobe
just due to access times?
-Kees
> +
> +/*
> modprobe_path is set via /proc/sys.
> */
> char modprobe_path[KMOD_PATH_LEN] = "/sbin/modprobe";
> @@ -167,8 +174,18 @@ int __request_module(bool wait, const char *fmt, ...)
> pr_warn_ratelimited("request_module: kmod_concurrent_max (%u) close to 0 (max_modprobes: %u), for module %s, throttling...",
> atomic_read(&kmod_concurrent_max),
> MAX_KMOD_CONCURRENT, module_name);
> - wait_event_interruptible(kmod_wq,
> - atomic_dec_if_positive(&kmod_concurrent_max) >= 0);
> + ret = wait_event_killable_timeout(kmod_wq,
> + atomic_dec_if_positive(&kmod_concurrent_max) >= 0,
> + MAX_KMOD_TIMEOUT * HZ);
> + if (!ret) {
> + pr_warn_ratelimited("request_module: modprobe %s cannot be processed, kmod busy with %d threads for more than %d seconds now",
> + module_name, atomic_read(&kmod_concurrent_max), MAX_KMOD_TIMEOUT);
> + pr_warn_ratelimited("request_module: recursive modprobe call very likely!");
> + return -ETIME;
> + } else if (ret == -ERESTARTSYS) {
> + pr_warn_ratelimited("request_module: sigkill sent for modprobe %s, giving up", module_name);
> + return ret;
> + }
> }
>
> trace_module_request(module_name, wait, _RET_IP_);
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
