[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140114192118.GA31411@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:21:18 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nschichan@...ebox.fr,
keescook@...omium.org, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, holt@....com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sys, seccomp: add PR_SECCOMP_EXT and
SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_TSYNC
On 01/13, Will Drewry wrote:
>
> +static pid_t seccomp_sync_threads(void)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *thread, *caller;
> + pid_t failed = 0;
> + thread = caller = current;
> +
> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + if (thread_group_empty(caller))
> + goto done;
> + while_each_thread(caller, thread) {
> + task_lock(thread);
perhaps we take task_lock() to serialize with another caller of
seccomp_sync_threads()...
If yes, then perhaps you can use ->siglock instead of tasklist_lock
and do not use task_lock(). It would be even better to rely on rcu,
but:
> + get_seccomp_filter(caller);
> + /*
> + * Drop the task reference to the shared ancestor since
> + * current's path will hold a reference. (This also
> + * allows a put before the assignment.)
> + */
> + put_seccomp_filter(thread);
> + thread->seccomp.filter = caller->seccomp.filter;
As I said, I do not understand this patch yet, but this looks suspicious.
Why we can't race with this thread doing clone(CLONE_THREAD) ? We do
not the the new thread yet, but its ->seccomp can be already copied
by copy_process(), no?
Oleg.
--
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