linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel/sys: do not grab tasklist_lock for sys_setpriority(PRIO

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 18:10:45 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        paulmck@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel/sys: do not grab tasklist_lock for
 sys_setpriority(PRIO_PROCESS)

On 05/11, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> This option does not iterate the tasklist and we already have
> an rcu aware stable pointer. Also, the nice value is not serialized
> by this lock. Reduce the scope of this lock to just PRIO_PGRP
> and PRIO_USER - which need to to set the priorities atomically
> to the list of tasks, at least vs fork().

looks correct, but probably the PRIO_USER case can avoid tasklist too?
It can't help to avoid the race with setuid().

(PRIO_PGRP needs tasklist_lock (see my previous email) but afaics it
 can race with fork anyway, it can miss the new child which was not
 added to the list yet, I hope we do not care).

So I'd suggest a single patch instead of 1-2, but I still don't understand
your PF_EXITING check in 1/2.

Oleg.

--- x/kernel/sys.c
+++ x/kernel/sys.c
@@ -214,7 +214,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, int, who, int, niceval)
 		niceval = MAX_NICE;
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	switch (which) {
 	case PRIO_PROCESS:
 		if (who)
@@ -229,9 +228,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, int, who, int, niceval)
 			pgrp = find_vpid(who);
 		else
 			pgrp = task_pgrp(current);
+		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 		do_each_pid_thread(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, p) {
 			error = set_one_prio(p, niceval, error);
 		} while_each_pid_thread(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, p);
+		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 		break;
 	case PRIO_USER:
 		uid = make_kuid(cred->user_ns, who);
@@ -243,16 +244,15 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, int, who, int, niceval)
 			if (!user)
 				goto out_unlock;	/* No processes for this user */
 		}
-		do_each_thread(g, p) {
+		for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
 			if (uid_eq(task_uid(p), uid) && task_pid_vnr(p))
 				error = set_one_prio(p, niceval, error);
-		} while_each_thread(g, p);
+		}
 		if (!uid_eq(uid, cred->uid))
 			free_uid(user);		/* For find_user() */
 		break;
 	}
 out_unlock:
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 out:
 	return error;
@@ -277,7 +277,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(getpriority, int, which, int, who)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	switch (which) {
 	case PRIO_PROCESS:
 		if (who)
@@ -295,11 +294,13 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(getpriority, int, which, int, who)
 			pgrp = find_vpid(who);
 		else
 			pgrp = task_pgrp(current);
+		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 		do_each_pid_thread(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, p) {
 			niceval = nice_to_rlimit(task_nice(p));
 			if (niceval > retval)
 				retval = niceval;
 		} while_each_pid_thread(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, p);
+		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 		break;
 	case PRIO_USER:
 		uid = make_kuid(cred->user_ns, who);
@@ -311,19 +312,18 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(getpriority, int, which, int, who)
 			if (!user)
 				goto out_unlock;	/* No processes for this user */
 		}
-		do_each_thread(g, p) {
+		for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
 			if (uid_eq(task_uid(p), uid) && task_pid_vnr(p)) {
 				niceval = nice_to_rlimit(task_nice(p));
 				if (niceval > retval)
 					retval = niceval;
 			}
-		} while_each_thread(g, p);
+		}
 		if (!uid_eq(uid, cred->uid))
 			free_uid(user);		/* for find_user() */
 		break;
 	}
 out_unlock:
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	return retval;