[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110803182417.GA2510@albatros>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:24:17 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Manuel Lauss <manuel.lauss@...glemail.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + shm-fix-a-race-between-shm_exit-and-shm_init.patch added to
-mm tree
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 16:04 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
> >
> > On thread exit shm_exit_ns() is called, it uses shm_ids(ns).rw_mutex. It
> > is initialized in shm_init(), but it is not called yet at the moment of
> > kernel threads exit. Some kernel threads are created in
> > do_pre_smp_initcalls(), and shm_init() is called in do_initcalls().
> >
> > Static initialization of shm_ids(init_ipc_ns).rw_mutex fixes the race.
>
> Yes, it is safe to call down_right() now.
>
> But the code does
>
> down_write(rw_mutex);
> if (.in_use)
> idr_for_each(.ipcs_idr);
>
> and thus it relies on the static initializer anyway. it is not safe
> to do idr_for_each() before idr_init() in theory.
>
> And since we rely on .in_use == 0, why we can't move this check
> outside of down_write/up_right to a) optimize the code and b)
> fix the problem?
Agreed. But I second Linus that partial initialization only hides the
real problem. And some initcall chain movement is still needed.
--
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
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