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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:47:50 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, matt.helsley@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, guillaume@...infr.org Subject: Re: + exitc-call-proc_exit_connector-after-exit_state-is-set.patch added to -mm tree On 02/27, Guillaume Morin wrote: > > On 25 Feb 16:10, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > pid_t pid = fork(); > > > if (pid > 0) { > > > register_interest_for_pid(pid); > > > if (waitpid(pid, NULL, WNOHANG) > 0) > > > { > > > /* We might have raced with exit() */ > > > } > > > > Just in case... Even with this patch the code above is still "racy" if the > > child is multi-threaded. Plus it should obviously filter-out subthreads. > > And afaics there is no way to make it reliable, even if you change the > > code above so that waitpid() is called only after the last thread exits > > WNOHANG still can fail. > > Not that I am not arguing with this change. Although I hope that someone > > can confirm that netlink_broadcast() is safe even if release_task(current) > > was already called, so that the caller has no pids, sighand, is not visible > > via /proc/, etc. > > I was too succinct, I think. What I am trying to do is to close a race > when a short-lived *process* dies before register_interest_for_pid() > interprets the connector message correctly, (i.e realizes this is an > exit message for a pid that the parent created). Yes, I misunderstood the changelog, thanks. Anyway, I only tried to say that "a small window between when the event is delivered and the child become wait()-able." is not closed by this patch. Sorry for not being clear enough. > You clarified for me that a ptraced process is a case where this race > could still happen. That's a good point. Fortunately, in the case of a > short-lived process, this is not a common scenario. OK. > You seem to say it's possible for all threads to have completed > exit_notify() and sent their exit message to the connector before > register_interest_for_pid() does its job and still have waitpid(WNOHANG) > fails. Is it correct? And I indeed said this, but I was wrong ;) Sorry. somehow I forgot that with this patch release_task(sub_thread) is always called before proc_exit_connector() (and I even asked if this is safe above). However, I still do not see how you can ensure that all threads have already exited to rely on WNOHANG. Nevermind. Please consider this trivial example: tfunc(void *) { for (;;) pause(); } int main(void) { pthread_create(tfunc); pthread_exit(); } The main thread can exit and call proc_exit_connector() before register_interest_for_pid(), but WNOHANG obviously can't succeed. So I am still not sure this patch can solve the problem you described. But let me repeat just in case: I am not arguing with this change. 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