[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YgKziblMKsmHkP4f@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 18:16:41 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] copy_process(): Move fd_install() out of
sighand->siglock critical section
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 11:39:12AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> One way to solve this problem is to move the fd_install() call out of
> the sighand->siglock critical section.
>
> Before commit 6fd2fe494b17 ("copy_process(): don't use ksys_close()
> on cleanups"), the pidfd installation was done without holding both
> the task_list lock and the sighand->siglock. Obviously, holding these
> two locks are not really needed to protect the fd_install() call.
> So move the fd_install() call down to after the releases of both locks.
Umm... That assumes we can delay it that far. IOW, that nothing
relies upon having pidfd observable in /proc/*/fd as soon as the child
becomes visible there in the first place.
What warranties are expected from CLONE_PIDFD wrt observation of
child's descriptor table?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists