linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] [PATCH i386] during VM oom condition, kill all threads in process group

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:51:24 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	will_schmidt@...t.ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [PATCH i386] during VM oom condition, kill all threads in process group

On 06/08, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Will Schmidt <will_schmidt@...t.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:19:18 -0500
> >> Will Schmidt <will_schmidt@...t.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > > > > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
> >> > 
> >
> >> In fact, it's probably the case that rcu_read_lock() is now sufficient
> >> locking coverage for zap_other_threads() (cc's people).
> >> 
> >> It had better be, because do_group_exit() forgot to take tasklist_lock.  It
> >> is perhaps relying upon spin_lock()'s hidden rcu_read_lock() properties
> >> without so much as a code comment, which would be somewhat nasty of it.
> >
> >> You could perhaps just call do_group_exit() from within the fault
> >> handler,
> >> btw.
> >
> > Yup, so looks like I can actually replace the existing do_exit() call
> > with do_group_exit().   I'll sit on this for a bit to give other folks a
> > chance to comment on which lock call is sufficient, read_lock() or
> > rcu_read_lock(), etc;  and do_group_exit()'s issue with taking
> > tasklist_lock. 
> 
> No.  The rcu_read_lock is not sufficient.
> Yes.  sighand->siglock is enough, and we explicitly take it in
> do_group_exit before calling zap_other_threads.

Yes, we don't need tasklist_lock (or rcu_read_lock).

de_thread() calls zap_other_threads() under tasklist_lock, but this
is because we can change child_reaper.

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/