Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] pidfd: show pids for nested pid namespaces in fdinfo

[Christian Brauner]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:55:59PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:23 PM Christian Kellner <ckellner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The fdinfo file for a process file descriptor already contains the
> > pid of the process in the callers namespaces. Additionally, if pid
> > namespaces are configured, show the process ids of the process in
> > all nested namespaces in the same format as in the procfs status
> > file, i.e. "NSPid:\t%d\%d...". This allows the easy identification
> > of the processes in nested namespaces.
> [...]
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
> > +static inline void print_pidfd_nspid(struct seq_file *m, struct pid *pid,
> > +                                    struct pid_namespace *ns)
> 
> `ns` is the namespace of the PID namespace of the procfs instance
> through which the file descriptor is being viewed.
> 
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS
> > +       int i;
> > +
> > +       seq_puts(m, "\nNSpid:");
> > +       for (i = ns->level; i <= pid->level; i++) {
> 
> ns->level is the level of the PID namespace associated with the procfs
> instance through which the file descriptor is being viewed. pid->level
> is the level of the PID associated with the pidfd.
> 
> > +               ns = pid->numbers[i].ns;
> > +               seq_put_decimal_ull(m, "\t", pid_nr_ns(pid, ns));
> > +       }
> > +#endif
> > +}
> 
> I think you assumed that `ns` is always going to contain `pid`.
> However, that's not the case. Consider the following scenario:
> 
>  - the init_pid_ns has two child PID namespaces, A and B (each with
> its own mount namespace and procfs instance)
>  - process P1 lives in A
>  - process P2 lives in B
>  - P1 opens a pidfd for itself
>  - P1 passes the pidfd to P2 (e.g. via a unix domain socket)
>  - P2 reads /proc/self/fdinfo/$pidfd
> 
> Now the loop will print the ID of P1 in A. I don't think that's what
> you intended? You might want to bail out if "pid_nr_ns(pid, ns) == 0",
> or something like that.

I assumed the same thing happens when you pass around an fd for
/proc/self/status and that's why I didn't object to this behavior.

Christian