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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190719161404.GA24170@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 18:14:05 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1] pidfd: fix a race in setting exit_state for pidfd
 polling

it seems that I missed something else...

On 07/17, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>
> @@ -1156,10 +1157,11 @@ static int wait_task_zombie(struct wait_opts *wo, struct task_struct *p)
>  		ptrace_unlink(p);
>  
>  		/* If parent wants a zombie, don't release it now */
> -		state = EXIT_ZOMBIE;
> +		p->exit_state = EXIT_ZOMBIE;
>  		if (do_notify_parent(p, p->exit_signal))
> -			state = EXIT_DEAD;
> -		p->exit_state = state;
> +			p->exit_state = EXIT_DEAD;
> +
> +		state = p->exit_state;
>  		write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);

why do you think we also need to change wait_task_zombie() ?

pidfd_poll() only needs the exit_state != 0 check, we know that it
is not zero at this point. Why do we need to change exit_state before
do_notify_parent() ?

Oleg.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ