[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140823133001.GA966@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:30:01 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + prctl-pr_set_mm-introduce-pr_set_mm_map-operation-v3.patch
added to -mm tree
forgot to mention,
On 08/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/23, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> > Looks like I need
> > to use cred_guard_mutex instead of task_lock here, no?
>
> Please don't. First of all, it can't help because proc_pid_auxv() doesn't hold
> this lock. It does mm_access() which drops this lock after return. And to remind,
> we are going to remove mm_access/lock_trace from sys_read() paths in proc.
Besides, it can't help anyway. cred_guard_mutex is per-process (not per-thread),
suppose that a vfork()'ed child does prctl() while another thread reads the
parent's /proc/pid/auxv.
Cyrill, I am sorry, but I am starting to think that this patch should be
dropped and replaced by another version. Or do you think it would be better
to send the fixes on top?
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