[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200206110051.GA4531@madhuparna-HP-Notebook>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:30:51 +0530
From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...il.com>
Cc: madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
oleg@...hat.com, christian.brauner@...ntu.com, guro@...com,
tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
joel@...lfernandes.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, frextrite@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal.c: Fix sparse warnings
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 04:59:52PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com writes:
>
> > From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
> >
> > This patch fixes the following two sparse warnings caused due to
> > accessing RCU protected pointer tsk->parent without rcu primitives.
> >
> > kernel/signal.c:1948:65: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > kernel/signal.c:1948:65: expected struct task_struct *tsk
> > kernel/signal.c:1948:65: got struct task_struct [noderef] <asn:4> *parent
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40: expected void const volatile *p
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40: got struct cred const [noderef] <asn:4> *[noderef] <asn:4> *
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40: expected void const volatile *p
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40: got struct cred const [noderef] <asn:4> *[noderef] <asn:4> *
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/signal.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> > index 9ad8dea93dbb..8227058ea8c4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -1945,8 +1945,8 @@ bool do_notify_parent(struct task_struct *tsk, int sig)
> > * correct to rely on this
> > */
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > - info.si_pid = task_pid_nr_ns(tsk, task_active_pid_ns(tsk->parent));
> > - info.si_uid = from_kuid_munged(task_cred_xxx(tsk->parent, user_ns),
> > + info.si_pid = task_pid_nr_ns(tsk, task_active_pid_ns(rcu_dereference(tsk->parent)));
> > + info.si_uid = from_kuid_munged(task_cred_xxx(rcu_dereference(tsk->parent), user_ns),
> > task_uid(tsk));
> > rcu_read_unlock();
>
>
> Still wrong because that access fundamentally depends upon the
> task_list_lock no the rcu_read_lock. Things need to be consistent for
> longer than the rcu_read_lock is held.
>
Okay, then how about something like rcu_dereference_protected(tsk->parent, lockdep_is_held(&tasklist_lock))?
Let me know if this looks fine to you.
Thank you,
Madhuparna
> This patch makes sparse happy and confuses programmers who are trying to
> read the code.
>
>
> Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists