linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/5] (Was: procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs. exec seq

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

Date:	Sun, 3 Aug 2014 23:18:43 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] (Was: procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs.
	exec seq_file)

On 08/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> The question is, why m_start() calls mm_access(). This is not even
> strictly correct if the task execs between m_stop() + m_start().
>
> Can't we do something like below? The patch is obviously horrible and
> incomplete, just to explain what I meant. Basically this is what
> proc_mem_operations does.

Absolutely untested, only for review.

What do you all think?

Sure, with this change you can't open (say) /proc/pid/maps, and read the
new mappings after exec. But hopefully this is fine? And again, this
matches /proc/pid/mem.

lock_trace() users need another fix.

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/