[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1234794204.30178.10.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:23:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Corey Hickey <bugfood-ml@...ooh.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, mtk.manpages@...il.com
Subject: Re: RT scheduling and a way to make a process hang, unkillable
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 14:19 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 18:44 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > (This is not a good day!)
>
> Monday strikes again ;-)
>
> > @@ -572,6 +572,9 @@ static int set_user(struct cred *new)
> > if (!new_user)
> > return -EAGAIN;
>
> So here we just allocated new_user and made sure we didn't fail that
> allocation.
>
> > + if (!task_can_switch_user(new->uid, current))
> > + return -EAGAIN;
>
> And here you bail, without freeing new_user. The idea was to do this
> check before alloc_uid().
>
> > if (atomic_read(&new_user->processes) >=
> > current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_NPROC].rlim_cur &&
> > new_user != INIT_USER) {
Ah, I now see I send you down a hole here,.. your find_user() in
task_can_switch_user() relies on that alloc_uid(). So you have to do it
after, and just free the new_user thingy when the test fails.
--
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