linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up

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]

Message-ID: <20090624171357.GA30435@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:13:57 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Ratan Nalumasu <rnalumasu@...il.com>,
	Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up_parent() to use filtered
	wakeup

On 06/24, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> do_notify_parent_cldstop:
>
> 	if (task_ptrace(tsk))
> 		parent = tsk->parent;
> 	else {
> 		tsk = tsk->group_leader;
> 		parent = tsk->real_parent;
> 	}
> 	...
> 	__wake_up_parent(tsk, parent);
>
> In the "else" case, parent is not necessarily tsk->parent.  That is, if
> an untraced thread calls do_notify_parent_cldstop() but its group_leader
> is ptrace_reparented().  Then waitee->group_leader->real_parent is who
> gets the wakeup, but __wake_up_parent->child_wait_wakeup would check
> only waiter == waitee->group_leader->parent.

... and in this case we do not wake up ->group_leader->real_parent.

But this is fine? It doesn't make sense to wake up, wait_consider_task()
will notice task_ptrace() and do nothing?

I really need to think with a fresh head, but it seems to me we could add
BUG_ON(p->parent != parent) into wait_consider_task() after "if (ptrace...)"
check.

And this "proves" your check in child_wait_callback() is correct, with
__WNOTHREAD do_wait_thread(parent) is always called with parent ==
sleeper, the caller of do_wait().

No?

Btw, this reminds me that wait_consider_task() doesn't need the "parent"
argument. I noticed this after adding wait_opts, but forgot to send a
patch.

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/