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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 3 May 2020 13:43:15 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:,,,,,, Davidlohr Bueso <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/sys: do not use tasklist_lock to set/get
 scheduling priorities

Cc'ing Oleg who iirc also like this stuff.

On Sat, 02 May 2020, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 08:05:39PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> For both setpriority(2) and getpriority(2) there's really no need
>> to be taking the tasklist_lock at all - for which both share it
>> for the entirety of the syscall. The tasklist_lock does not protect
>> reading/writing the p->static_prio and task lookups are already rcu
>> safe, providing a stable pointer.
>RCU-safe, as in, it will not crash.. However, without tasklist_lock the
>thread iterations (for PRIO_PGRP/PRIO_USER) now race against fork().
>That is a user observable change in behaviour.
>Do we care about it? No idea, and your Changelog also doesn't provide

Yeah, that was convenient of me to leave out, sorry. So copy_process()
will hlist_add_rcu() under the writer tasklist_lock, but pid->tasks rculist
traversals are safe. As such afaiu this fork serialization is for concurrent
changes, something these syscalls do not do.

In any case, we could at least keep the changes to getpriority(2) as even
if there is a race in the list the new priority won't be any higher than
what was observed already, thus maintaining semantics.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists