linux-kernel - Re: + 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: <20110908173559.GA26492@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:35:59 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	fweisbec@...il.com, neilb@...e.de, paul@...lmenage.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: +
	cgroups-more-safe-tasklist-locking-in-cgroup_attach_proc.patch
	added to -mm tree

On 09/07, Ben Blum wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 05:55:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/02, Ben Blum wrote:
> > >
> > > But I don't think the check becomes pointless? If a sub-thread execs
> > > right before read_lock(&tasklist_lock) (but after the find_task_by_vpid
> > > in attach_task_by_pid), that causes the case that the comment refers to.
> >
> > How so? The comment says:
> >
> > 	* a race with de_thread from another thread's exec() may strip
> > 	* us of our leadership, making while_each_thread unsafe
> >
> > This is not true.
>
> Sorry, the comment is unclear.

No, the comment is clear. In fact it was me who pointed out we can't
do while_each_thread() blindly. And now I am tried to confuse you ;)

So, sorry for noise, and thanks for correcting me. Somehow I forgot
this is not safe even under tasklist.

Partly I was confused because I was thinking about the patch I suggested,
if we use ->siglock we are safe. If lock_task_sighand(task) succeeds,
this task should be on list.

Anyway, I was wrong, sorry.

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/