linux-kernel - [PATCH 4/4] reparent/untrace: do nothing if no childs/tracees

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

Message-ID: <20090211211224.GA16860@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:12:24 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] reparent/untrace: do nothing if no childs/tracees

forget_original_parent() and exit_ptrace() can avoid taking the global
tasklist_lock if there are no childs/tracees. But I failed to invent
the comment to explain why/when this is safe to do, that is why the
separate patch/changelog.

The problem is, we can race with the concurrent release_task() which
can remove the last child form our ->children/ptraced list. This means
that list_empty() can return the "false" positive, it is possible that
release_task() is still in progress, it can use the caller's task_struct
somehow, and it is even possible that list_del(sibling/ptrace_entry)
has not yet completed.

But this is fine, before our task_struct will be released we will take
tasklist_lock at least once in release_task(), this will synchronize us
with the possible release_task/ptrace_unlink in flight.

However, forget_original_parent() has another problem. We can race with
another thread which has already picked us for reparenting before we set
PF_EXITING, so this patch also checks thread_group_empty().

It is possible to be more clever, we can take tasklist for reading, or
ensure that ->thread_group.prev is not PF_EXITING, but this is nasty.
Perhaps even this optimization is too ugly.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>

--- 6.29-rc3/kernel/exit.c~4_TASKLIST	2009-02-11 07:20:54.000000000 +0100
+++ 6.29-rc3/kernel/exit.c	2009-02-11 21:25:35.000000000 +0100
@@ -803,6 +803,16 @@ static void forget_original_parent(struc
 	struct task_struct *p, *n, *reaper;
 	LIST_HEAD(dead_childs);

+	if (thread_group_empty(father)) {
+		/*
+		 * Make sure no other thread can reparent to
+		 * us after the list_empty(->children) check.
+		 */
+		smp_rmb();
+		if (list_empty(&father->children))
+			return;
+	}
+
 	write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
 	reaper = find_new_reaper(father);

--- 6.29-rc3/kernel/ptrace.c~4_TASKLIST	2009-02-11 04:04:17.000000000 +0100
+++ 6.29-rc3/kernel/ptrace.c	2009-02-11 08:27:41.000000000 +0100
@@ -323,6 +323,9 @@ void exit_ptrace(struct task_struct *tra
 	struct task_struct *p, *n;
 	LIST_HEAD(ptrace_dead);

+	if (list_empty(&tracer->ptraced))
+		return;
+
 	write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &tracer->ptraced, ptrace_entry) {
 		if (__ptrace_detach(tracer, p))

--
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/