linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][BUGFIX] cgroups: more safe tasklist locking in cgroup_attach

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: <20110815184957.GA16588@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:49:57 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>
Cc:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][BUGFIX] cgroups: more safe tasklist locking in
	cgroup_attach_proc

On 07/29, Ben Blum wrote:
>
> According to this thread - https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/27/243 - RCU is
> not sufficient to guarantee the tasklist is stable w.r.t. de_thread and
> exit. Taking tasklist_lock for reading, instead of rcu_read_lock,
> ensures proper exclusion.

Yes.

So far I still think we should fix while_each_thread() so that it works
under rcu_read_lock() "as exepected", I'll try to think more.

But whatever we do with while_each_thread(), this can't help
cgroup_attach_proc(), it needs the locking.

> -	rcu_read_lock();
> +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>  	if (!thread_group_leader(leader)) {

Agreed, this should work.

But can't we avoid the global list? thread_group_leader() or not, we do
not really care. We only need to ensure we can safely find all threads.

How about the patch below?


With or without this/your patch this leader can die right after we
drop the lock. ss->can_attach(leader) and ss->attach(leader) look
suspicious. If a sub-thread execs, this task_struct has nothing to
do with the threadgroup.



Also. This is off-topic, but... Why cgroup_attach_proc() and
cgroup_attach_task() do ->attach_task() + cgroup_task_migrate()
in the different order? cgroup_attach_proc() looks wrong even
if currently doesn't matter.


Oleg.

--- x/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ x/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -2000,6 +2000,7 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cg
 	/* threadgroup list cursor and array */
 	struct task_struct *tsk;
 	struct flex_array *group;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	/*
 	 * we need to make sure we have css_sets for all the tasks we're
 	 * going to move -before- we actually start moving them, so that in
@@ -2027,19 +2028,10 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cg
 		goto out_free_group_list;
 
 	/* prevent changes to the threadgroup list while we take a snapshot. */
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	if (!thread_group_leader(leader)) {
-		/*
-		 * a race with de_thread from another thread's exec() may strip
-		 * us of our leadership, making while_each_thread unsafe to use
-		 * on this task. if this happens, there is no choice but to
-		 * throw this task away and try again (from cgroup_procs_write);
-		 * this is "double-double-toil-and-trouble-check locking".
-		 */
-		rcu_read_unlock();
-		retval = -EAGAIN;
+	retval = -EAGAIN;
+	if (!lock_task_sighand(leader, &flags))
 		goto out_free_group_list;
-	}
+
 	/* take a reference on each task in the group to go in the array. */
 	tsk = leader;
 	i = 0;
@@ -2055,9 +2047,9 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cg
 		BUG_ON(retval != 0);
 		i++;
 	} while_each_thread(leader, tsk);
+	unlock_task_sighand(leader, &flags);
 	/* remember the number of threads in the array for later. */
 	group_size = i;
-	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	/*
 	 * step 1: check that we can legitimately attach to the cgroup.

--
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/