[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190531095553.GA31323@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 11:55:53 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: restore smp_rmb() in __ptrace_may_access()
On 05/31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 02:05:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Anyway, looking at it, I think smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() doesn't
> > > make sense here;
> >
> > Well I still _think_ it should work, it provides the LOAD-LOAD ordering
> > and this is what we need.
>
> So it hard relies on being part of a control dependency,
Yes,
> IOW, it is an error to use smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() without an
> (immediate) preceding branch.
and it is still not clear to me if __ptrace_may_acess() has a control
dependency or not,
if (uid_eq(caller_uid, tcred->euid) && ...)
goto ok;
retuurn;
ok:
// provide LOAD->LOAD
smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
again, again, I didn't suggest to change the patch, I was just curious
if it would be correct or not.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists