linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] pidns: guarantee that the pidns init will be the last pidns process reaped

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120614172013.GA6635@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2012 19:20:13 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	Louis Rilling <louis.rilling@...labs.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pidns: guarantee that the pidns init will be the
	last pidns process reaped

On 06/13, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>
> > <looks at the locking a bit>
> >
> > <gets distracted>
> >
> > That tty_kref_put() in __exit_signal() is running with tasklist_lock
> > held, yes?  It does a ton of work and calls out to random drivers and
> > none of this needs tasklist_lock.  Seems risky.
>
> Interesting.  That tty_kref_put does sound like an area where the
> locking can be simplified.  At the same time tty_kref_put does make
> sense from exit signal.  As ttys and signals are intimately intertwined.

This was introduced in 2008, 9c9f4ded90a59eee84e15f5fd38c03d60184e112

Nobody complained so far... but I agree this doesn't look very good.
At first glance it is simle to move this kref_put() outside of
tasklist_lock. Something like below.

But I'll re-check. And I guess the patch can be simpler/cleaner.
Say, __exit_signal() can return tty or group_dead.

Oleg.

--- x/kernel/exit.c
+++ x/kernel/exit.c
@@ -79,12 +79,11 @@ static void __unhash_process(struct task
 /*
  * This function expects the tasklist_lock write-locked.
  */
-static void __exit_signal(struct task_struct *tsk)
+static void __exit_signal(struct task_struct *tsk, struct tty_struct **ptty)
 {
 	struct signal_struct *sig = tsk->signal;
 	bool group_dead = thread_group_leader(tsk);
 	struct sighand_struct *sighand;
-	struct tty_struct *uninitialized_var(tty);
 
 	sighand = rcu_dereference_check(tsk->sighand,
 					lockdep_tasklist_lock_is_held());
@@ -93,7 +92,7 @@ static void __exit_signal(struct task_st
 	posix_cpu_timers_exit(tsk);
 	if (group_dead) {
 		posix_cpu_timers_exit_group(tsk);
-		tty = sig->tty;
+		*ptty = sig->tty;
 		sig->tty = NULL;
 	} else {
 		/*
@@ -149,10 +148,8 @@ static void __exit_signal(struct task_st
 
 	__cleanup_sighand(sighand);
 	clear_tsk_thread_flag(tsk,TIF_SIGPENDING);
-	if (group_dead) {
+	if (group_dead)
 		flush_sigqueue(&sig->shared_pending);
-		tty_kref_put(tty);
-	}
 }
 
 static void delayed_put_task_struct(struct rcu_head *rhp)
@@ -167,6 +164,7 @@ static void delayed_put_task_struct(stru
 
 void release_task(struct task_struct * p)
 {
+	struct tty_struct *tty = NULL;
 	struct task_struct *leader;
 	int zap_leader;
 repeat:
@@ -180,7 +178,7 @@ repeat:
 
 	write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
 	ptrace_release_task(p);
-	__exit_signal(p);
+	__exit_signal(p, &tty);
 
 	/*
 	 * If we are the last non-leader member of the thread
@@ -207,6 +205,8 @@ repeat:
 	p = leader;
 	if (unlikely(zap_leader))
 		goto repeat;
+
+	tty_kref_put(tty);
 }
 
 /*

--
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/