[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C91E0DE.4080507@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:18:22 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] pid: make setpgid() system call use RCU read-side
critical section
On 09/10/2010 12:15 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/30, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> --- a/kernel/sys.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
>>> @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(setpgid, pid_t, pid, pid_t, pgid)
>>> write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
>>>
>>> err = -ESRCH;
>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>> p = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
>>
>> AFAICT the missing lock doesn't harm due to the write_lock of tasklist
>> above. But is probably a good thing to do anyway.
>
> The problem is, find_task_by_vpid() is not safe without RCU. It is not
> that the returned task_struct can't go away, find_pid_ns() itself is
> not safe. This is because the failing copy_process() calls free_pid()
> without tasklist_lock and modifies pid_hash[] list.
That said, it (950eaaca681c4) should probably go into stable. (Apply to
all 32-35 whichever are maintained currently.)
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
--
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