[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DCD1256.4070808@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:13:26 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] comm: Introduce comm_lock seqlock to protect task->comm
access
Hi
Sorry for the long delay.
> char *get_task_comm(char *buf, struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> - /* buf must be at least sizeof(tsk->comm) in size */
> - task_lock(tsk);
> - strncpy(buf, tsk->comm, sizeof(tsk->comm));
> - task_unlock(tsk);
> + unsigned long seq;
> +
> + do {
> + seq = read_seqbegin(&tsk->comm_lock);
> +
> + strncpy(buf, tsk->comm, sizeof(tsk->comm));
> +
> + } while (read_seqretry(&tsk->comm_lock, seq));
> +
> return buf;
> }
Can you please explain why we should use seqlock? That said,
we didn't use seqlock for /proc items. because, plenty seqlock
write may makes readers busy wait. Then, if we don't have another
protection, we give the local DoS attack way to attackers.
task->comm is used for very fundamentally. then, I doubt we can
assume write is enough rare. Why can't we use normal spinlock?
--
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