On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:31:08AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:29:16AM +0800, Lei Chen wrote:
> > Hi Konrad,
>
> Hi,
>
> CC-ing stable,Greg,and LKML. Pls see attached and inline patch and explanation
> at bottom.
>
> > I'm running kernel 4.4.153. When running iotop, I got such failure:
> > # iotop -P
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > File "/sbin/iotop", line 17, in <module>
> > main()
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/iotop/ui.py", line 620, in main
> > main_loop()
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/iotop/ui.py", line 610, in <lambda>
> > main_loop = lambda: run_iotop(options)
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/iotop/ui.py", line 508, in
> > run_iotop
> > return curses.wrapper(run_iotop_window, options)
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/curses/wrapper.py", line 43, in wrapper
> > return func(stdscr, *args, **kwds)
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/iotop/ui.py", line 501, in
> > run_iotop_window
> > ui.run()
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/iotop/ui.py", line 155, in run
> > self.process_list.duration)
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/iotop/ui.py", line 434, in
> > refresh_display
> > lines = self.get_data()
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/iotop/ui.py", line 415, in get_data
> > return list(map(format, processes))
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/iotop/ui.py", line 388, in format
> > cmdline = p.get_cmdline()
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/iotop/data.py", line 292, in
> > get_cmdline
> > proc_status = parse_proc_pid_status(self.pid)
> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/iotop/data.py", line 196, in
> > parse_proc_pid_status
> > key, value = line.split(':\t', 1)
> > ValueError: need more than 1 value to unpack
> >
> > Having a little further debug, I found this error is caused by the
> > unexpected blank line in /proc/<pid>/status file, like below:
> >
> > CapBnd: 0000003fffffffff
> > CapAmb: 0000000000000000
> >
> > Speculation_Store_Bypass: vulnerable
> > Cpus_allowed: ff
> >
> > Checking the git history, I see you touched the line "seq_printf(m,
> > "\nSpeculation_Store_Bypass:\t");". Do you think this additional blank line
> > is caused by the leading "\n" of "Speculation_Store_Bypass"?
>
> That is correct.
> It looks that the backport missed the change. The v4.4 has:
>
> static inline void task_seccomp(struct seq_file *m, struct task_struct *p)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
> seq_printf(m, "Seccomp:\t%d\n", p->seccomp.mode);
> #endif
> seq_printf(m, "\nSpeculation_Store_Bypass:\t");
>
> Upstream has:
>
> tatic inline void task_seccomp(struct seq_file *m, struct task_struct *p)
> {
> seq_put_decimal_ull(m, "NoNewPrivs:\t", task_no_new_privs(p));
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
> seq_put_decimal_ull(m, "\nSeccomp:\t", p->seccomp.mode);
> #endif
> seq_printf(m, "\nSpeculation_Store_Bypass:\t");
>
> The af884cd4a5ae6 is the one that removed the '\n' from the end and put it in the
> front of 'Seccomp '.
>
> Greg, I am not sure how one would fix this in a stable tree. But the fix is simple
> (hadn't tested it..)
>
> >From 9e1909f29e1162f2fba190dbab88d1bbcaf0365d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:27:55 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix: proc: Use underscores for SSBD in 'status'
>
> Upstream af884cd4a5ae6 (not backported) added a '\n' in front
> of 'Seccomp' but we have the old format with '\n' at the end.
> This causes mayhem with 'Speculation_Store_Bypass' adding an extra
> newline breaking tools.
>
> Reported-by:Lei Chen <chenl.lei@xxxxxxxxx>
> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/proc/array.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c
> index cb71cbae606d..60cbaa821164 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/array.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/array.c
> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ static inline void task_seccomp(struct seq_file *m, struct task_struct *p)
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
> seq_printf(m, "Seccomp:\t%d\n", p->seccomp.mode);
> #endif
> - seq_printf(m, "\nSpeculation_Store_Bypass:\t");
> + seq_printf(m, "Speculation_Store_Bypass:\t");
> switch (arch_prctl_spec_ctrl_get(p, PR_SPEC_STORE_BYPASS)) {
> case -EINVAL:
> seq_printf(m, "unknown");
> --
> 2.13.4
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lei Chen
> >From 9e1909f29e1162f2fba190dbab88d1bbcaf0365d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:27:55 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix: proc: Use underscores for SSBD in 'status'
>
> Upstream af884cd4a5ae6 (not backported) added a '\n' in front
> of 'Seccomp' but we have the old format with '\n' at the end.
> This causes mayhem with 'Speculation_Store_Bypass' adding an extra
> newline breaking tools.
>
> Reported-by:Lei Chen <chenl.lei@xxxxxxxxx>
> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/proc/array.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c
> index cb71cbae606d..60cbaa821164 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/array.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/array.c
> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ static inline void task_seccomp(struct seq_file *m, struct task_struct *p)
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
> seq_printf(m, "Seccomp:\t%d\n", p->seccomp.mode);
> #endif
> - seq_printf(m, "\nSpeculation_Store_Bypass:\t");
> + seq_printf(m, "Speculation_Store_Bypass:\t");
> switch (arch_prctl_spec_ctrl_get(p, PR_SPEC_STORE_BYPASS)) {
> case -EINVAL:
> seq_printf(m, "unknown");
This is already in the latest 4.9-rc release and in the 4.4.y stable
queue, as others reported it last week, so it will be fixed in the next
releases of those trees.
thanks,
greg k-h
