| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090204001243.GA6567@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:12:43 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: do_each_pid_task() needs rcu lock On 02/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes: > > > Yes, I thought about de_thread() too. But we can't "fix" do_each_pid_task() > > to avoid the race? > > For the case of exec there is that. There is also the case that > ftrace unlike everything else wants to trace be able to trace all of > the idle threads with pid 0. I think that is a special case > currently, but for that case the only correct version I can think > of do_each_task_pid(), and current do_each_task_pid is wrong because > it does not allow that. Well, yes, I (partly) agree. But, if we are talking about idle threads, we should change copy_process() first. Because fork_idle()->copy_process(..., pid => init_struct_pid, ...) means we don't really attach the idle thread to init_struct_pid. I must admit, I think we should keep init_struct_pid "special" anyway, but in any case you are right imho, there are nasty oddities here. 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