[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070810164546.GA273@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:45:46 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make access to task's nsproxy liter
On 08/10, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >On 08/10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >>Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@...nvz.org):
> >>>+/*
> >>>+ * the namespaces access rules are:
> >>>+ *
> >>>+ * 1. only current task is allowed to change tsk->nsproxy pointer or
> >>>+ * any pointer on the nsproxy itself
> >>>+ *
> >>>+ * 2. when accessing (i.e. reading) current task's namespaces - no
> >>>+ * precautions should be taken - just dereference the pointers
> >>>+ *
> >>>+ * 3. the access to other task namespaces is performed like this
> >>>+ * rcu_read_lock();
> >>>+ * nsproxy = task_nsproxy(tsk);
> >>>+ * if (nsproxy != NULL) {
> >>>+ * / *
> >>>+ * * work with the namespaces here
> >>>+ * * e.g. get the reference on one of them
> >>>+ * * /
> >>>+ * } / *
> >>>+ * * NULL task_nsproxy() means that this task is
> >>>+ * * almost dead (zombie)
> >>>+ * * /
> >>>+ * rcu_read_unlock();
> >>And lastly, I guess that the caller to switch_task_namespaces() has
> >>to ensure that new_nsproxy either (1) is the init namespace, (2) is a
> >>brand-new namespace to which noone else has a reference, or (3) the
> >>caller has to hold a reference to the new_nsproxy across the call to
> >>switch_task_namespaces().
> >>
> >>As it happens the current calls fit (1) or (2). Again if we happen to
> >>jump into the game of switching a task into another task's nsproxy,
> >>we'll need to be mindful of (3) so that new_nsproxy can't be tossed into
> >>the bin between
> >>
> >> if (new)
> >> get_nsproxy(new);
> >
> >4) Unless tsk == current, get_task_namespaces(tsk) and get_nsproxy(tsk)
> > are racy even if done under rcu_read_lock().
>
> Yup :)
>
> It is already written in comment that only the current is allowed
> to change its nsproxy. I.e. when switch_task_nsproxy() is called
> for tsk other than current it's a BUG
Yes, but what I meant is that this code
rcu_read_lock();
nsproxy = task_nsproxy(tsk);
if (nsproxy != NULL)
get_nsproxy(nsproxy);
rcu_read_unlock();
if (nsproxy) {
use_it(nsproxy);
put_nsproxy(nsproxy);
}
is not safe despite the fact we are _not_ changing tsk->nsproxy.
The patch itself is correct because we don't do that, and the comment
is right. Just it is not immediately obvious.
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