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  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:	Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:06:14 -0500
From:	Ben Blum <>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <>
Cc:	Paul Menage <>,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: + cgroups-add-functionality-to-read-write-lock-clone_thread-forking-pe r-threadgroup.patch added to -mm tree

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 03:09:52PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> OK, cgroups-add-ability-to-move-all-threads-in-a-process-to-a-new-cgroup-atomically.patch
> does
> 	threadgroup_sighand = threadgroup_fork_lock(leader);
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	list_for_each_entry_rcu(tsk, &leader->thread_group, thread_group)
> and this is equally wrong afais. Hmm, and other similar
> list_for_each_entry_rcu's doesn't look right. This code can do something
> like
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	if (!tsk->sighand)	// tsk is leader or not, doesn't matter
> 		fail;
> 	list_for_each_rcu(tsk->thread_group) {}
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
> though.
> And why do we need sighand->threadgroup_fork_lock ? I gueess, to protect
> against clone(CLONE_THREAD).
> But. threadgroup_fork_lock() has another problem. Even if the process
> P is singlethreaded, I can't see how ->threadgroup_fork_lock work.
> threadgroup_fork_lock() bumps P->sighand->count. If P exec, it will
> notice sighand->count != 1 and switch to another ->sighand.
> Oleg.

So how about this: Each time we take tasklist_lock to iterate over
thread_group (once in getting the sighand, once to move all the tasks),
check if we raced with exec. The two problems are 1) group_leader
changes - we'll need to find the new leader's task_struct anyway - means
we can't iterate over thread_group, and 2) sighand changes after we take
the old one, means we've taken a useless lock.

I put together draft revisions of the old patches that check for racing
with exec in both cases, and if so, returning EAGAIN. I have the wrapper
function cgroup_procs_write loop around the return value, but it could
also possibly give EAGAIN back to userspace. Hopefully the code is safe
and sane this time :)

-- bblum

 Documentation/cgroups/cgroups.txt |    7
 include/linux/cgroup.h            |   14 -
 include/linux/init_task.h         |    9
 include/linux/sched.h             |   15 +
 kernel/cgroup.c                   |  519 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 kernel/fork.c                     |    9
 6 files changed, 524 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
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