linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Update comment on find_task_by_pid

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:30:50 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update comment on find_task_by_pid_ns

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:18:34PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Gleixner (tglx@...utronix.de):
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:30:33 -0600 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org):
> > > > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:42:45 +0900
> > > > > Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > OK. I updated description.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > As of 2.6.32 , below users are missing rcu_read_lock().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Users missing rcu_read_lock() when calling find_task_by_vpid():
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   SYSCALL_DEFINE3(ioprio_set) in fs/ioprio.c
> > > > > >   SYSCALL_DEFINE2(ioprio_get) in fs/ioprio.c
> > > > > >   cap_get_target_pid() in kernel/capability.c
> > > > > 
> > > > > Actually, cap_get_target_pid() uses rcu_read_lock() and doesn't take
> > > > > tasklist_lock.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm - is that in -mm?  In my copy here it takes read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
> > > 
> > > yup.  It got changed in linux-next.
> > > 
> > > > And I'll admit I'm a bit confused as to the current state of things:
> > > > do I understand correctly that we now need to take both the tasklist_lock
> > > > and rcu_read_lock?  (Presumably only for read_lock()?)
> > > 
> > > Beats me.  We need to protect both the pid->task_struct lookup data
> > > structures (during the lookup) and protect the resulting task_struct
> > > while the caller is playing with it.  It's unclear whether
> > > rcu_read_lock() suffices for both purposes.
> > 
> > The rcu_read_lock section is sufficient. task_struct can not go away
> > before the rcu_read_unlock()
> 
> But, more generally, it used to be the case that a spinlock (or
> rwlock) would imply an rcu read cycle, but now it no longer does,
> do I understand that right?

You are correct, with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU, acquiring a lock does -not-
imply an RCU read-side critical section.  And acquiring a lock does
-not- imply any sort of RCU read-side critical section in -rt kernels
in any case.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/