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: <m1zkx04y40.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:13:03 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> 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.

It is about the list traversal.  In the process group case it is about
traversing the pid->tasks[PIDTYPE_PGID] hlist, which is also protected
by the tasklist_lock.

> 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.

I think it is totally reasonable to add a per pid lock,
that would protect the pid->task[...] hlist.  That would make
things clearer and finer grained without a lot of effort.  Just
a little more struct pid bloat, and a little extra care in fork,
when we add to those lists.

Even with the per-pgrp lock we still need a lock on the global process
list for the kill -KILL -1 case.  Which suggests that tasklist_lock is
still needed for part of kill_something_info.

Eric
--
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/