linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code

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: <20110420105059.460C.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:50:51 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code

Hi

(Cc to  John Stultz who/proc/<pid>/comm author. I think we need to hear his opinion)

> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 14:21 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > The rule is,
> > > 
> > > 1) writing comm
> > > 	need task_lock
> > > 2) read _another_ thread's comm
> > > 	need task_lock
> > > 3) read own comm
> > > 	no need task_lock
> > 
> > That was true a while ago, but you now need to protect every thread's 
> > ->comm with get_task_comm() or ensuring task_lock() is held to protect 
> > against /proc/pid/comm which can change other thread's ->comm.  That was 
> > different before when prctl(PR_SET_NAME) would only operate on current, so 
> > no lock was needed when reading current->comm.
> 
> Everybody still goes through set_task_comm() to _set_ it, though.  That
> means that the worst case scenario that we get is output truncated
> (possibly to nothing).  We already have at least one existing user in
> mm/ (kmemleak) that thinks this is OK.  I'd tend to err in the direction
> of taking a truncated or empty task name to possibly locking up the
> system.
> 
> There are also plenty of instances of current->comm going in to the
> kernel these days.  I count 18 added since 2.6.37.
> 
> As for a long-term fix, locks probably aren't the answer.  Would
> something like this completely untested patch work?  It would have the
> added bonus that it keeps tsk->comm users working for the moment.  We
> could eventually add an rcu_read_lock()-annotated access function.

The concept is ok to me. but AFAIK some caller are now using ARRAY_SIZE(tsk->comm).
or sizeof(tsk->comm). Probably callers need to be changed too.

Thanks.


--
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/