[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:15:55 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] pid: make setpgid() system call use RCU read-side
critical section
On 08/30, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> Ccing Oleg.
Sorry for delay...
> > --- a/kernel/sys.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> > @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(setpgid, pid_t, pid, pid_t, pgid)
> > write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> >
> > err = -ESRCH;
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > p = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
>
> AFAICT the missing lock doesn't harm due to the write_lock of tasklist
> above. But is probably a good thing to do anyway.
The problem is, find_task_by_vpid() is not safe without RCU. It is not
that the returned task_struct can't go away, find_pid_ns() itself is
not safe. This is because the failing copy_process() calls free_pid()
without tasklist_lock and modifies pid_hash[] list.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists