linux-kernel - Re: while_each_thread() under rcu_read

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20100618223713.GA3233@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jun 2010 00:37:13 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken?

On 06/18, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> I think you're right.  I can't see what would prevent that race.

How sad.

> So for_each_process

for_each_process() looks fine. It uses init_task as the anchor,
it can't go away, it is swapper.

> and do_each_thread are safe only under
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock) and while_each_thread is only safe under
> either that or siglock.

Yes,

(Also a few places using next_thread in
> similar loops outside those macros.)

I hope that most (all?) of next_thread() users can be converted to
use while_each_thread().

> Perhaps we could move those del's from __unhash_process to
> __put_task_struct (or just delayed_put_task_struct?)

This needs write_lock_irq(tasklist), we can't take it in atomic
context. And I bet this change (at least right now) has other
implications.

> I think de_thread() in exec-by-nonleader is the only case where this
> can happen, right?  So then perhaps we could make it call release_task
> only via call_rcu?

Hmm, perhaps...  I am already sleeping, will try to check this idea
tomorrow. At first glance, it looks promising to me. And I see the
email from Paul which is too late to read for me today ;)

In any case, I _think_ we can fix while_each_thread(), say XXX(t)
from the previous email. But then we should audit the users like
zap_threads() which assume we should not miss any "interesting" task.
Probably zap_threads() is fine because of mmap_sem, but I can't
think properly now.

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/