[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912101535560.3089@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:38:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/9] sys: Fix missing rcu protection for __task_cred()
access
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > commit c69e8d9 (CRED: Use RCU to access another task's creds and to
> > release a task's own creds) added non rcu_read_lock() protected access
> > to task creds of the target task in set_prio_one().
> >
> > The comment above the function says:
> > * - the caller must hold the RCU read lock
> >
> > The calling code in sys_setpriority does read_lock(&tasklist_lock) but
> > not rcu_read_lock(). This works only when CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=n.
> > With CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=y the rcu_callbacks can run in the tick
> > interrupt when they see no read side critical section.
> > ...
> > --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/kernel/sys.c
> > +++ linux-2.6-tip/kernel/sys.c
> > @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which,
> > if (niceval > 19)
> > niceval = 19;
> >
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>
> Off-topic, but can't resist...
>
> This also fixes another bug here. find_task_by_vpid() is not safe
> without rcu_read_lock(). I do not mean it is not safe to use the
> result, just find_pid_ns() by itself is not safe.
>
> Usually tasklist gives enough protection, but if copy_process() fails
> it calls free_pid() lockless and does call_rcu(delayed_put_pid().
> This means, without rcu lock find_pid_ns() can't scan the hash table
> safely.
I guess we have whole bunch of auditing to do all over the place. And
we definitely need some debugging aid (preferrably a lockdep
extension) which allows us to detect such nasty details.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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