[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170607123657.GA22199@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:36:57 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/26] rlimit: Remove unnecessary grab of tasklist_lock
Hi Eric,
I'll try very much to read this series tomorrow, can't do this today...
On 06/06, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> @@ -1380,13 +1380,6 @@ int do_prlimit(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int resource,
> return -EPERM;
> }
>
> - /* protect tsk->signal and tsk->sighand from disappearing */
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> - if (!tsk->sighand) {
> - retval = -ESRCH;
> - goto out;
> - }
Yes, the comment is wrong.
However we do need read_lock(tasklist_lock) to access ->group_leader. And the
->sighand != NULL check ensures that ->group_leader is the valid pointer.
Also, update_rlimit_cpu() is not safe without tasklist / sighand-check.
We can probably change this code to rely on rcu.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists