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  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]
Date:	Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:15:27 +0100
From:	Jiri Slaby <>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <>, Neil Horman <>,
	Stephen Rothwell <>,,,,,,, Linus Torvalds <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] extend get/setrlimit to support setting rlimits external
 to a process (v7)

On 11/09/2009 05:40 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Also, I don't understand why wthis code get's both pid and task_struct().

And what do you suggest? I, with my knowledge and after fast
investigation, see no other option.

> And the "if (resource >= RLIM_NLIMITS)" check is racy afaics, see

Your patch (which I have in my series btw) is likely needed for the
setprlimit syscall, having this on my mind again from now on. But the
'if' above is a different story. 'resource' is an index here.

And as a bonus, what I found out now is that /proc/*/limits
(proc_info_read->proc_pid_limits) doesn't necessarily reflect current
limits. Since task_lock(current->group_leader) is not held, values of
one limit may be from the old as well as the currently updated one.

Am I right and do we care at all (since it's not atomic anyway in the
sense of reading 2 small chunks from that file)?

Thanks for the input.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists