[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100526124006.GA28358@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 14:40:06 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/1] ptrace: PTRACE_GETFDPIC: fix the unsafe usage
of child->mm
On 05/25, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > - arch/blackfin/kernel/ptrace.c:is_user_addr_valid()
> > needs mmap_sem around find_vma()
> >
> > The lockless access to mm->context.sram_list doesn't look
> > safe to me.
> >
> > If we add get_task_mm() - this protects us against
> > destroy_context() only. What is the tracee's sub-thread
> > does sys_sram_alloc() or sys_sram_free() in parallel?
>
> i dont believe there are any code paths in UP systems where this would
> be a practical problem because sram_list is only updated by syscalls
> from userspace.
Yes sure, UP && !PREEMPT is safe.
> we probably should add proper locking to this
> structure though.
Agreed. I'll try to make the trivial patch tomorrow. I think we
can just use mm->mmap_sem, is_user_addr_valid() needs this lock
for find_vma() anyway.
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