linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] Freezer: Read PF_BORROWED

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:	Sat, 12 May 2007 19:16:22 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] Freezer: Read PF_BORROWED_MM in a nonracy way

On Saturday, 12 May 2007 18:58, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I see.  We spawn a kernel thread from a code path that belongs to a
> > user space task and we need to call deamonize() to make it become a
> > 'real' kernel thread.
> > 
> > Still, this means that is_user_space() may return 'true' for this thread
> > before it calls daemonize() and then the scenario described by me in the
> > previous message may occur.  It seems.
> 
> Yes sure. Probably not so bad in practice. Most likely this fresh thread
> is not "important" and could be freezed, I dunno.

I don't know too, and that's why I'd like to prevent this from happening.

> > It's in freezer-fix-pf_nofreeze-vs-freezeable-race.patch (appended for
> > convenience, white space may be broken).
> >
> > ---
> > --- a/include/linux/freezer.h~freezer-fix-pf_nofreeze-vs-freezeable-race
> > +++ a/include/linux/freezer.h
> > @@ -63,8 +63,10 @@ static inline int thaw_process(struct ta
> >   */
> >  static inline void frozen_process(struct task_struct *p)
> >  {
> > -       p->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
> > -       wmb();
> > +       if (!unlikely(p->flags & PF_NOFREEZE)) {
> > +               p->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
> > +               wmb();
> > +       }
> >         clear_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_FREEZE);
> >  }
> 
> This is OK if a kernel thread does try_to_freeze() eventually.
> 
> But what if it does not, because it marks itself as PF_NOFREEZE?
> This means it may run with signal_pending() forever. That is why
> I think we should clear TIF_FREEZE when we set PF_NOFREEZE.

Yes, we should.

Greetings,
Rafael
-
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/