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]
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:01:00 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@...wei.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kernel/sched: Fix sched_fork() access an invalid
 sched_task_group

Hello,

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 03:50:54PM +0800, Zhang Qiao wrote:
> Between cgroup_can_fork() and cgroup_post_fork(), the cgroup
> membership is fixed and thus sched_task_group can't change. So
> call sched_fork() after cgroup_can_fork() and update the child's
> sched_task_group before it is used.

The part being fixed looks correct to me but it's difficult to for me to
assess whether the whole relocation of the sched_fork() hook doesn't change
anything else. Besides, even if we decide to relocate the sched_fork hook, I
think it'd be better to separate the two changes - one is a relatively safe
bug fix, the other is a code reorganization with possibly subtle side
effects. So, I think it'd be better to produce a patch which just fixes the
bug even if that ends up introducing another function in the flow.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ