[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120630062453.GA14083@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 07:24:53 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
". James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Was: deferring __fput()
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:45:39PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Forgot to mention...
>
> And I still think that task_work_add() should not succeed unconditionally,
> it synchronize with exit_task_work(). Otherwise keyctl_session_to_parent()
> is broken.
Hmm... Look: if nothing else, we have
/* the parent mustn't be init and mustn't be a kernel thread */
if (parent->pid <= 1 || !parent->mm)
goto unlock;
in the caller. OTOH, on the exit side we have exit_mm() done first. And
that will have ->mm set to NULL. So we are closing a very narrow race to start
with. So why not do the following and be done with that?
diff --git a/security/keys/keyctl.c b/security/keys/keyctl.c
index 0291b3f..f1b59ae 100644
--- a/security/keys/keyctl.c
+++ b/security/keys/keyctl.c
@@ -1486,6 +1486,7 @@ long keyctl_session_to_parent(void)
oldwork = NULL;
parent = me->real_parent;
+ task_lock(parent);
/* the parent mustn't be init and mustn't be a kernel thread */
if (parent->pid <= 1 || !parent->mm)
goto unlock;
@@ -1529,6 +1530,7 @@ long keyctl_session_to_parent(void)
if (!ret)
newwork = NULL;
unlock:
+ task_unlock(parent);
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
rcu_read_unlock();
if (oldwork)
--
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