Re: [PATCH 1/2] treewide: fix memory corruptions when TASK_COMM_LEN!= 16

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Tuesday 2012-01-24 22:54, Andrew Morton wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:09:44 +0100
>Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I found that the kernel BUG()s out, already during boot, when bumping
>> TASK_COMM_LEN to a value larger than 16
>
>We can never increase TASK_COMM_LEN - it is part of the kernel ABI/API.
>Doing so would destroy existing userspace which uses 16-byte buffers.

I do not see TASK_COMM_LEN being exposed to userspace. In fact, it is 
behind a #ifdef __KERNEL__.

There is nothing wrong with userspace using a buffer with a size 
different from the object's size within the kernel. It's done all the 
time, in fact. readlink(2) for example also has a size argument rather 
than declaring to all parties they have to use PATH_MAX everytime.

>If you're interested in working on this stuff I'd suggest that we
>confine ourselves to cleaning things up (without adding code) rather
>than permitting a different TASK_COMM_LEN.  Things like replacing "16"
>with TASK_COMM_LEN.

There is what I would call the "Plate of Tunable Macros". #defines
that invite the reader to change them (think PID_MAX_DEFAULT).

If there is a piece of kernel code that
assumes/requests that userspace use a 16-byte buffer (such as
cn_proc as mentioned), then it should use a file-level define or
something with a comment above it that this is a fixed user value.

I would therefore say that changing TASK_COMM_LEN is possible without 
breaking any userprogram.

(In other words, TASK_COMM_LEN can just remain what it is, and 
comm[TASK_COMM_LEN] in struct task_struct could be changed to 
e.g. comm[32]. Using sizeof(x.comm) also seems more proof in general.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/