[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090902135024.GA6452@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:50:24 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] core: allow setrlimit to non-current tasks
On 09/02, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/sys.c
> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> @@ -1240,20 +1240,28 @@ int setrlimit(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int resource,
> struct rlimit *new_rlim)
> {
> struct rlimit *old_rlim;
> + unsigned long flags;
> int retval;
>
> if (new_rlim->rlim_cur > new_rlim->rlim_max)
> return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags) == NULL)
> + return -ESRCH;
No, sorry, this can't work.
Because we need task_lock() to update rlimits, and ->alloc_lock does not
nest under ->siglock.
Looks like we have to use tasklist_lock, but please don't use _irq, and
please do not check ->signal != NULL. Perhaps it makes sense to take
tasklist only if !same_thread_group(tsk, current) though.
Oh. We really need to make ->signal refcountable.
But there is another minor problem. If we use read_lock(ttasklist), then
the write to /proc/application_pid/limits can race with application doing
sys_setrlimits().
Nothing bad can happen, but this means that "echo ... > /proc/limits" can
be lost. Not good, if admin wants to lower ->rlim_max we should try to ensure
this always works.
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