linux-kernel - [PATCH 197/270] Revert "cgroup: Drop task_lock(parent) on cgroup

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: <1353949160-26803-198-git-send-email-herton.krzesinski@canonical.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:58:07 -0200
From:	Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 197/270] Revert "cgroup: Drop task_lock(parent) on cgroup_fork()"

3.5.7u1 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>

commit 9bb71308b8133d643648776243e4d5599b1c193d upstream.

This reverts commit 7e381b0eb1e1a9805c37335562e8dc02e7d7848c.

The commit incorrectly assumed that fork path always performed
threadgroup_change_begin/end() and depended on that for
synchronization against task exit and cgroup migration paths instead
of explicitly grabbing task_lock().

threadgroup_change is not locked when forking a new process (as
opposed to a new thread in the same process) and even if it were it
wouldn't be effective as different processes use different threadgroup
locks.

Revert the incorrect optimization.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
LKML-Reference: <20121008020000.GB2575@...alhost>
Acked-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Bitterly-Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>
---
 kernel/cgroup.c |   23 ++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
index 63c9596..75d4318 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -4739,31 +4739,20 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_cgroupstats_operations = {
  *
  * A pointer to the shared css_set was automatically copied in
  * fork.c by dup_task_struct().  However, we ignore that copy, since
- * it was not made under the protection of RCU, cgroup_mutex or
- * threadgroup_change_begin(), so it might no longer be a valid
- * cgroup pointer.  cgroup_attach_task() might have already changed
- * current->cgroups, allowing the previously referenced cgroup
- * group to be removed and freed.
- *
- * Outside the pointer validity we also need to process the css_set
- * inheritance between threadgoup_change_begin() and
- * threadgoup_change_end(), this way there is no leak in any process
- * wide migration performed by cgroup_attach_proc() that could otherwise
- * miss a thread because it is too early or too late in the fork stage.
+ * it was not made under the protection of RCU or cgroup_mutex, so
+ * might no longer be a valid cgroup pointer.  cgroup_attach_task() might
+ * have already changed current->cgroups, allowing the previously
+ * referenced cgroup group to be removed and freed.
  *
  * At the point that cgroup_fork() is called, 'current' is the parent
  * task, and the passed argument 'child' points to the child task.
  */
 void cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *child)
 {
-	/*
-	 * We don't need to task_lock() current because current->cgroups
-	 * can't be changed concurrently here. The parent obviously hasn't
-	 * exited and called cgroup_exit(), and we are synchronized against
-	 * cgroup migration through threadgroup_change_begin().
-	 */
+	task_lock(current);
 	child->cgroups = current->cgroups;
 	get_css_set(child->cgroups);
+	task_unlock(current);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&child->cg_list);
 }
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

--
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/