linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] CRED: Fix __task_cred()'s lockdep check and banner comment

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: <AANLkTikavQKkvmdY5=8jh8KSV7vit=WcmDHWjnZfVWnv@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:14:50 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] CRED: Fix __task_cred()'s lockdep check and banner 
	comment

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> No.  When we send a signal to multiple processes it needs to be an
> atomic operation so that kill -KILL -pgrp won't let processes escape.
> It is what posix specifies, it is what real programs expect, and it
> is the useful semantic in userspace.

Ok. However, in that case, it's not really about the whole list
traversal, it's a totally separate thing, and it's really sad that we
end up using the (rather hot) tasklist_lock for something like that.
With the dcache/inode locks basically going away, I think
tasklist_lock ends up being one of the few hot locks left.

Wouldn't it be much nicer to:
 - make it clear that all the "real" signal locking can rely on RCU
 - use a separate per-pgrp lock that ends up being the one that gives
the signal _semantic_ meaning?

That would automatically document why we get the lock too, which
certainly isn't clear from the code as-is.

The per-pgrp lock might be something as simple as a silly hash that
just spreads out the process groups over some random number of simple
spinlocks.

> With the tasklist_lock the rule in these functions is that the caller
> will take the lock, so we probably make the rule the caller should
> take the lock in the same scenarios for the rcu_read_lock(). Aka just
> say:
>
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> everywhere, that today we say just:
>
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);

I agree that we probably should have done that originally, in order to
not have these bugs show up later. However, I don't think it makes
sense any more, especially not if tasklist_lock isn't even a "real"
lock from a kernel internal consistency standpoint, but has a totally
secondary meaning.

                       Linus
--
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/